If It Was Up To You, What Would Be Britain's Immigration Laws?

24

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If people are proposing to limit the time EU citizens can stay here, what happens if you're married to one? :confused:
  • pcawthronpcawthron Posts: 880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CSJB wrote: »
    I would go further and have computerised records, we need to know who is and isn't in the country and also, who isn't allowed.

    i-Borders? e-Borders?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28840966

    Oh...
  • jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NO non-EU citizens unless they have been mandated entry
    one in one out for EU citizens only
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jassi wrote: »
    I would allow those from present and former colonies only.

    Those colonies wanted independence, why should they now get special treatment?

    Make it global selection, no EU, no commonwealth.
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You're happy for other countries to apply those rules to Brits wanting to emigrate too?

    Balanced migration, they take a British citizen, we take one of their citizens, total population increase zero.
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think anybody in the world should be able to live wherever the hell they like.

    Well wouldn't that mean the end of the welfare state. Why on earth would any one in the UK pay for the rest of the world?

    Everyone would just have private education, healthcare etc.
  • gocompletelynutgocompletelynut Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Reinstate the primary purpose rule, the biggest mistake made by any government in my lifetime was to end it.

    Chain migration is the main reason we have the situation of ghettos at the moment as when people get citizenship they then invite their parents, their brothers and sisters, their uncles and aunties to join them and the cycle never ends with no integration required.

    In fact I reckon if it was brought back now immigration rates would halve overnight.
    It's a no brainier really.
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Who are you trying to get into the country? This is such an ongoing theme I can't help but wonder if you are searching for an overseas bride ;-)

    Actually secondary immigration is the worse kind, as we don't have to consider what they have to offer to the country. They have to speak English now, but we don't check their skills or qualifications. We don't consider whether the job they do is on the skills shortage list. They don't spend money in the economy.

    Anyway the government is not stopping them, they are just insisting people have enough money to support them and not the taxpayer.
  • jassijassi Posts: 7,895
    Forum Member
    Those colonies wanted independence, why should they now get special treatment?

    Make it global selection, no EU, no commonwealth.

    I feel we have some responsibility towards the ex-colonies that we do not have towards the rest of the world.
    There should not, of course, be unrestricted admission for anyone.
  • BoyardBoyard Posts: 5,393
    Forum Member
    pcawthron wrote: »
    Points based on skills matching skills shortages.
    Zero net immigration - one in, one out.
    No HIV/AIDS.
    Remove illegals and their children including any UK born.
    Remove criminals.
    No NHS - compulsory health insurance.
    No State Pension - compulsory private pension.
    No Child Benefit for the first generation born here.

    We have to remove the 'pull factors'.

    Agreed. Take away the benefits and the leeches will stop coming.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    That is an EU law. Nothing to do with the UK we have no control.

    No its not. The Minimum Income Rules/Laws to bring in a spouse is a Tory policy passed by those sell out Lib Dems as well as part of the Tories plans to get immigration numbers into the tens of thousands. So fixated they are with reaching that goal, they see fit to stop british citizens bringing their husband/wives here if they can! >:( That's freedom is it?! Equal marriage laws my foot!
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    MartinP wrote: »
    Yes I know that but why are you so fanatical about this law? You must have something going on ;-)

    If this was affecting me personally, that has got nothing to do with you and what, I can't be against a rule/law without perosnally being affected by it?! I could be a billionaire and I would still stand by my political convictions including on this and not sell out like the useless idiots who are supposed to be centre left parties when they get into Government.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    limit the number of people we let in a year.
    no 1 with a serious criminal record allowed in.only allow people in if they got a job waiting for them.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    Actually secondary immigration is the worse kind, as we don't have to consider what they have to offer to the country. They have to speak English now, but we don't check their skills or qualifications. We don't consider whether the job they do is on the skills shortage list. They don't spend money in the economy.

    Anyway the government is not stopping them, they are just insisting people have enough money to support them and not the taxpayer.



    I've pointed out to you many times before that the previous rules were that any spouse of a British person would not be allowed to claim benefits for themselves. The Government can't nor should stop the British half of a couple getting benefits they would be entitled to in their own right but the spouse couldn't get benefits for 5 years.

    I sure hope the Tories get punnished electorally bigtime on this next May and I think they will.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    Boyard wrote: »
    Agreed. Take away the benefits and the leeches will stop coming.

    People move to other countries to work not to claim benefits. Of course if people are prevented from working like asylum seekers are while their cases are being looked at, then they will be getting some state help won't they but if you think that people move thousands of miles just to get up to £70 a week dole money then you are very misguided on this.

    Proof? Look at the immigrants that moved here from the late 1940's onwards. They didn't sit on their backsides and claim benefits. They worked damn hard and filled jobs that needed filling. From factory work to transport to medical jobs. If people are allowed to to work, are given the jobs are not discriminated against, they will work and work hard and contribute big to the country and do!
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Styker wrote: »
    If this was affecting me personally, that has got nothing to do with you and what, I can't be against a rule/law without perosnally being affected by it?! I could be a billionaire and I would still stand by my political convictions including on this and not sell out like the useless idiots who are supposed to be centre left parties when they get into Government.

    I think that's clear enough for me :)
    I wonder where she's from....
  • megarespmegaresp Posts: 888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have a 3-part platform as follows...

    1) Free beer for all New Zealanders living in the UK.

    2) Retake Calais (because "Bl**dy French", and also to help fund #1)

    3) Anything outside the M25 to be renamed as 'Here be dragons'
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    MartinP wrote: »
    I think that's clear enough for me :)
    I wonder where she's from....

    Assume what you like, I take it that you are perfectly fine with such outrageous rules then. I wonder if you would feel the same if you or someone in your family was prevented from bringing a spouse here.

    Btw, British people are marrying people from all parts of the world and it is affecting many many people. I sure do hope in seats where the Tory majorities are very small and there are a lot of seats with small majorities, that this outrageous discriminatory rule costs the Tories and Lib Dems their seat. :)
  • BoyardBoyard Posts: 5,393
    Forum Member
    Styker wrote: »
    People move to other countries to work not to claim benefits. Of course if people are prevented from working like asylum seekers are while their cases are being looked at, then they will be getting some state help won't they but if you think that people move thousands of miles just to get up to £70 a week dole money then you are very misguided on this.

    Proof? Look at the immigrants that moved here from the late 1940's onwards. They didn't sit on their backsides and claim benefits. They worked damn hard and filled jobs that needed filling. From factory work to transport to medical jobs. If people are allowed to to work, are given the jobs are not discriminated against, they will work and work hard and contribute big to the country and do!

    That was then. This is now. It's not the 1940s anymore! I work in Acton and you constantly see Somali women everywhere, often with several children, just hanging around in the street chatting all day or slowly ambling around the pound shops. They don't seem to do any work. A very lazy people.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    Boyard wrote: »
    That was then. This is now. It's not the 1940s anymore! I work in Acton and you constantly see Somali women everywhere, often with several children, just hanging around in the street chatting all day or shopping in the pound shops. They don't seem to do any work. A very lazy people.

    Immigrants have always worked hard IF they are given the chance/jobs. There is massive unemployment among ethnic minorties and I think that must be down to blatant discrimination as the numbers are up to 45%!

    You might like to think they are choosing not to work and are "lazy people" and I say, I doubt that very much and are not getting the jobs because of descrimiantion and an abuse of power from those in charge of hiring at companies. I think something needs to be done about that and should have been done ages ago!
  • warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No immigration at all for 10 years, except for Russian billionaires and their mistresses.
  • paralaxparalax Posts: 12,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I would base it in the Australian policy, would cap numbers, to avoid the overcrowding we have now.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,780
    Forum Member
    paralax wrote: »
    I would base it in the Australian policy, would cap numbers, to avoid the overcrowding we have now.

    We already have a points based system. Non EU low skilled workers now find it very difficult to come here and even if they are allowed to come here, its for 5 years maximum.

    I've met people who work for major companies who've had to leave after 5 years.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,564
    Forum Member
    Boyard wrote: »
    That was then. This is now. It's not the 1940s anymore! I work in Acton and you constantly see Somali women everywhere, often with several children, just hanging around in the street chatting all day or slowly ambling around the pound shops. They don't seem to do any work. A very lazy people.

    That's rather judgemental. Perhaps they can't find work, or perhaps their husbands are working and they can't work because they have to look after the kids.
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    warlord wrote: »
    No immigration at all for 10 years, except for Russian billionaires and their mistresses.
    Why not? They're still immigrants.
Sign In or Register to comment.