Is this not already the case?
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
Is this not already the case?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
Yes it is already the case. However if you listen to Britexit they will try to make you think it is not.
Yes, that's because Australia's government has decided it needs to increase the population there. Australia has lots of space, a low population, has a very healthy economy despite the commodities crash and a massive skills shortage. If they decide that they're letting too many people in then they can just tighten the entry criteria. This is what we mean when we talk about controlling borders.
This is false. We are not party to the EU treaty that would require us to take any given number of refugees. It's completely a UK decision to shirk our international responsibilities and refuse to take even a paltry share of the refugees from the crisis we helped create in the Middle East.
This is also false. We are bound by out international treaty obligations to accept anyone who rightfully claims asylum on UK soil. We have no more control over that number out of the EU than we do inside the EU. In fact, since the French have said they will stop helping reduce the number for us by maintaining the border in Calais if we leave the EU*, we may end up with less control.
* - there's no necessary connection here between the deal and the EU, it's just what the French are saying and since the deal is unpopular in France it seems quite likely they'll look on it as a convenient excuse.
Letting in 1.5 million skilled workers that have a job to come to is not a bad thing.
People leave the UK too you know so the overall increase is likely to be a fair bit less than that.
How have you got from 380,000 a year to nearly triple that at 1 million people a year?
A significant majority of immigrants actually work in industries that benefit public services and they work in the same economy and thus contribute to tax, NI etc. They aren't all a drain on the system as you seem to be suggesting.
Of course they do, in a way adding to the problem in some respects. I mentioned several factors. Migrant families particularly non-EU have much higher birthrates and can apply to have family brought over.
I know they do but a lot do not and equally the British public suffer. I'll give you one such account. My local Hospital be brought in 2500 EU non-qualified nurses and covered all relocation and other costs. Each of them cost circa £25,000 in expenses in the first year. Then we have announced that the Nurses bursary is going to go? I think British people are quite rightly and justified in being peed off.
You also forget that a lot of migrant workers send money back home that will not benefit the country. If you know migrant workers which I am sure you will say you do. You will know they send hundreds of pounds home each month.
One of my friends from Iraq sent back over to his brother in several lump sums to the tune of £35,000. He'd made several payments like this previously in the 10years he had been here. I know a fair few Polish blokes who rent here (2 families living in one house) who manage between them to send £1,000 a week back. Cheap area to rent, work industry type jobs (that have seen a salary contraction by the way despite business picking up). There would be tens of thousands of people doing exactly the same. You are talking tens of millions yearly at the very least gone from the UK.
They do pay tax yes. They may pay £200 a month in tax but are probably sending twice that out of the UK.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
Seriously, that is your response? The reality is that the “points-based” skilled migrant route that the Brexiters focus on accounted for only 15% of the 482,000 new immigrants to Australia in the last year.
Last edited:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette (probably am) but how can anyone claim asylum here if they've travelled through numerous safe countries already?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
Still haven't made my mind up although I am more for staying IN as the snippets from anti EU arguments I keep hearing where I live tend to be the "cus' immigrants" mentality 
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Whilst there are other factors involved that would affect that figure, the fact remains that with freedom of movement in place moving to the UK is 13 times more attractive to a person in the EU than it is to someone living outside it.
It would have a significant effect of the total immigration figure.
You've missed the point (and cut the important bit after what you quoted), which is what I've just explained to awaybreaktoday above.
Why don't you use your posts to inform and add something meaningful instead of being dismissive and vague
International law does not require that you claim asylum at the first safe port. The EU, however, has a convention that requires this - the so-called Dublin convention - and allows states to return asylum seekers to the country they first entered the EU through. It's fair to say the Dublin convention has broken down in recent times and, in any case, if we Brexited we would no longer be party to it.
Which, thinking about it, is another reason we'd have less control over refugee numbers if we left the EU.
Last edited:
As I've written before, it's easy it be alarmed by this concept and completely miss the bigger picture.
Tens of millions a year you say? The UK current account deficit is over 32 billion pounds a year, 32,000 million, several thousand times higher than the capital outflow from migrant workers.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...current-account-deficit-the-forgotten-deficit
Money leaving due to the activities of migrant workers is a drop in the ocean compared to other structural problems in the economy.
In any case, all the evidence suggests migrant workers have a net benefit to the economy.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
Also,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/dec/06/immigration.immigrationpolicy
Also a quote:
"But then it is not so long since the Conservatives when in opposition criticised Labour after it introduced a points-based system for skilled migration into Britain from outside the EU. The reason they complained was that it was open-ended and would do nothing to cap the numbers coming to Britain."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/dec/06/immigration.immigrationpolicy
Also a quote:
"But then it is not so long since the Conservatives when in opposition criticised Labour after it introduced a points-based system for skilled migration into Britain from outside the EU. The reason they complained was that it was open-ended and would do nothing to cap the numbers coming to Britain."
It is but given that our net immigration figures are already so high we're limited in how many we can cope with, where as if we got the 180k figure from the EU down we'd have the capability to help more of those that are truly desperate
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Because this is OCUK.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 May 2006
- Posts
- 4,107
- Location
- London
The best and only way to decrease immigration is a carpet blank no one in policy, even then you cannot control illegal immigration and a carpet blank would greatly increase the illegal.
What's your point? You asked for an example of a controlled immigration system - I gave you one. You said it's not working well for Australia but have failed to explain how it is not working well for Australia. Are you disputing that immigration can be controlled?
- Status