Options
Why the Government's Immigration Policy is doing more harm than good. (The Economist)
From the bastian of Leftie thinking - The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21564895-government%E2%80%99s-policy-students-and-skilled-migrants-threatens-do-long-term-damage
This is what happens when you create a policy to appease the Tory Newspapers rather than look deeper at the problems with immigration and the real issues behind those problems.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21564895-government%E2%80%99s-policy-students-and-skilled-migrants-threatens-do-long-term-damage
This is what happens when you create a policy to appease the Tory Newspapers rather than look deeper at the problems with immigration and the real issues behind those problems.
0
Comments
The problem is right now we do have a government welfare migrant magnet and unless you can control who can get it, thanks to EU meddling we can't nor can we stop poor eastern Europeans from coming here at all ether.
We also have the other issue that this is not a huge island, in the future if this island need to be self sufficient we can't be tearing up our farm land. just to make new cities for people to live en' mass.
I agree.
With regards to working in IT, employers often provide a list of skill-sets that they want but then refuse to allow people with similar skills-set but not an exact match, just a few days/weeks to get up to speed.
It's ridiculous because technology is so diverse. If someone knows Java, it really won't take someone long to get to grips with C Sharp.
This is the first problem which plays into the shortage of IT people.
Secondly, companies are also reluctant to take on computer science graduates as they don't want to train them in the real world which also play into the shortage.
In IT everything is catch-22 and until employers change their approach to IT workers, the 'shortage' perception is likely to continue.
Any moron could have told them beforehand that any tightening of the immigration rules would harm British interests as it would disproportionately reduce the visas available to people the UK needs.
My flatmate is in a similar position, he is a graduate engineer currently working for Centrica. His contract ends next summer along with his Visa and contrary to popular belief pay for graduate engineers is hardly Earth shattering, this despite the fact the oil and gas industry is screaming for people.
The uncertainty over his Visa will make it harder for him to get a job offer, and that will make it harder to get a visa.
A vicious circle brought about by badly thought out legislation, which like I said was designed to appease the Murdoch newspapers rather than address the real holes in our immigration system.
I always thought they came to study, not to migrate and should leave as soon as their studies end.We dont need anymore migrants in the UK however well educated. Theres 2.5 people looking for work in the UK and enough educated people to fill the jobs
Why didn't he recruit a UK graduate then he wouldn't have had the hassle of appyling for a work visa.
Exactly. Theres 2.5 million people unemployed in the UK and many have got excellent qualifications. The Conservatives are only trying to stop foreign people using study as an easy migration route in to the UK
Also remove the right to using public services like the NHS.
Firms should have to pay for private health insurance and insurance against the foreign workers having to use public services.
That was we get the skills without the burdens.
I am in favour of allowing more skilled workers, and from the graph half way down link you have posted it appears that we need more bankers as the biggest trade surplus is in finance
Are you referring to the family migration route, the study route, the work route, or the asylum route?
Curbing family migration is actually helping British interest's, if those interests are population control, welfare control and the promotion of integration and a more cohesive society. Making 'Chain Migration' illegal, would go a long way to making the system fairer.
The education lobby are being very selective about how beneficial the study route is to Britain. What they really want is for foreign students to be allowed to work, settle and bring over dependants as well. Basically optional extras or perks to add to the basic course package, which makes them more competitive in the international education market, while letting the state pick up the economic and social tab. It doesn't help the proponents case, that they constantly have their head in the sand concerning bogus students and institutions.
As for work, the cap has never been exceeded and if the employers have their way we will get 20,000 Indian IT staff and probably 20,000 compulsory redundancies in the UK IT sector for British workers.
Conservatives policies could be more flexible in some instances. For example allowing people to stay if they do an NHS job for more than five years, but if they resign they are deported.
Allowing the foreign spouse to put up the money to qualify for a spouse visa but not the extended family.
Immigration can never really be fixed until we have proper exit controls, i.e emigration desks at Heathrow as well as immigration ones and biometric encrypted passports. That and the principle that the sponsor is always legally responsible for the immigrant they sponsor for a visas, whether that be work, study of family reunion.
Any one know how the e-borders system is progressing after the contractor was sacked? When will foreign students be able to be counted in and out?
Immigrants should never be allowed to switch migration route. If they come here to study and want to marry or work, they should return to their own country and reapply for a different visa from there. Temporary migrants should not be eligible for article 8 of the human rights act either.
Settlement is the key statistic, not immigration or NET immigration in my view.
Wasn't that the National Socialist policy back in the 30's ? You were only allowed to be a visitor or a guest worker in Germany, no settlement allowed.
Seems that we will have to deport 80% of the people on the Rich List.
http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list/
Leave the EU - and then we can be as desperately poor as Norway and Switzerland?:D
It happened in America some while back. But America has a fair chunk of support for such neo-conservatives, the UK barely has any.
Ssh, you'll ruin the rants.
The reason the two year post work study route was closed to foreign students, was because many were working in fried chicken shop type jobs for NMW wages etc. They were not doing graduate level work, for graduate level wages.
School leavers with no qualifications have no choice but to do this level of work and it was unfair on them that they were unemployed due to foreign students. Labour didn't want to know and continued to have their heads in the sand on the issue.
In my view this was a very sensible change to the rules. Its one of the perks that the university vice Chancellors want restored, while pretending to be bothered about our reputation being damaged and removing students from NET migration figures.
As for the sponsor, people that benefit from immigration should pay for the privilege.
Maybe, but the majority of people who settle here permanently are from outside the EU.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/settlement-uk
Look at Figure 3. Most migrants that settle are from Asia and Africa.
Look at the pie chart in figure 4. India and Pakistan account for huge amounts compared to other countries.
It's people that settle, that will use up housing, jobs, welfare etc.
There's no need to require settlement if you are EU.
The real issue here is the incapable nature of authorities when removing those who are here illegitimately.. wether its because of an outdated/weak system or the way our government is tied up on every little thing by the eu lawmakers
The end result is you get a rather frustrated/ignorant stance taken against Immigration on the whole... like alot of things typical "tar with the same brush" behavior by the media
The quota they quote in the article for skilled migrants from outside the EU is undersubscribed which is at odds with their argument on those sort of immigrants.
Just the usual stuff and no real thinking behind it.
If you read that article there's no explanation for why the firm couldn't employee a British web developer - it's not like there are a shortage of IT professionals in the UK. In fact there are few reasons why most of these jobs couldn't be filled by British people if they were trained properly. Of course from a company perspective it makes sense to just employee the already qualified Indian.
The logical conclusion from the above would be to restrict immigration but there is another point - if you stop these firms from employing expat workers who are already trained what is to stop the entire company moving somewhere else? Sure there are some jobs that need to be done in the UK but there are an awful lot that don't.
Perhaps we could spread some out in the Shires, the Cotswolds or Richmond upon Thames.