Election Year or Fear!

[Ramshank72]

Maddy, that's tosh. 90 000 were admitted for health care work last year. Doesn't exactly explain the rest does it?
When you are allowing students(who actually don't meet the rquirements of entry for a lot of them) to come here AND bring their families, why? Student Migration to the UK

Migration Observatory
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk › briefings › stud...
24 Jan 2024 — In the 2021/22 academic year, approximately 680,000 international students were enrolled in UK higher education, making up 24% of all entries?

Immigration is supposed to be managed. It isn't.
Every immigrant, for whatever reason- brings pressure on housing/NHS/education/services/transport , as well as social problems and stifling wages .

We need immigration! But only what we need


But we are supposed to be managing it, like most countries in the world do.
Australia is very strict on immigration, yet needs workers when it suits. But even theirs was less than ours and thats after issuing 0.5 million temp visas for food picking.
London now has a population density of between 10 000 -15000 /km2 and rising. Sydney 2037 people per square kilometre,

This is why immigration is an issue to most folks. No disrespect to RA, but he lives in rural Derbyshire. He is hardly likely to feel the pains of poorer people living in these areas.

That doesn't mean he doesn't appreciate their struggles. The things that are top of his list are things that will help those people more than immigration stats.
We know you forest fans love history, what happened 10 years ago today?

[ramAnag]

You bent the topic into the boats crisis.
It isn't the only thing and wasn't the the only thing I have been moaning about. The boats are the ulimate piss take. It costs billions to accomodate these young single men fleeing persecution (cough)But in the grand scheme of things, they are not even included in the net 750 000 migration figures.

You made out that was my single gripe. It isn't

Tricky…I didn’t ‘bend’ or ‘cherry pick’ anything. That was the wording on the bar graph. I didn’t choose it. Their wording was, ‘Reduce immigration by stopping small boats crossing the Channel’…no other mention of immigration was made, probably for the reasons MA alludes to.

[Andy_Faber]

Tricky…I didn’t ‘bend’ or ‘cherry pick’ anything. That was the wording on the bar graph. I didn’t choose it. Their wording was, ‘Reduce immigration by stopping small boats crossing the Channel’…no other mention of immigration was made, probably for the reasons MA alludes to.

If I said 'you've made your point' could you be the bigger person and back off? Treat the request as a compliment, you're my only hope

[ramAnag]

If I said 'you've made your point' could you be the bigger person and back off? Treat the request as a compliment, you're my only hope

Point taken.

[MadAmster]

Maddy, that's tosh. 90 000 were admitted for health care work last year. Doesn't exactly explain the rest does it?

Right! Here beginneth the lesson... in no particular order.

1. You accuse posters on here of cherry picking. You have taken a part of a sentence and turned it into the be all and end all. There may have been 90K into health care last year. There are still in excess of 100K vacancies in the NHS. They need filling. I posted QUOTE only once we have zero vacancies in the NHS and other vytal areas UNQUOTE I didn't go into the specifics of other vytal areas but seemingly missed that bit, probably because it doesn't fit your narrative.

2. Doesn't exactly explain the rest? Apart from mentioning the NHS I also included that business owners and shareholders want profits to grow and that can't happen with a shrinking population. It is the richest few % who are driving governments all over Europe and the UK to get these extra bodies in to guarantee their own financial status quo at worst and to improve it if at all possible (not verbatim but that's the gist of what I wrote). You chose to throw those particular cherries away. Why? Destroys your argument? Explains exactly why these folk are being allowed in. It's not being done for you or against you, it's to protect the lofty position of the rich. Another part of my post to which you replied that you ignored.

3. 750K net immigration in 2023. Of that number, a massive 29,437 came via small boats. That's 3.924% of the net immigration.

4. Wage stifling/job stealing. I have yet to see an English fruit or hop picker claim these foreigners have taken their job and/or caused their wages to stagnate or drop.

Where I would agree with you is that immigration does need to be controlled. I've now lived in the Netherlands for 40 years, that's 10 longer than I lived in the UK. I am now the holder of dual nationality. If I commit a serious crime, I'll do my time, lose my Dutch citizenship and be sent back to the land of my birth, the UK. I don't find that harsh. It's what should happen to those entering the UK and then committing serious crime as well.

[Trickytreesreds]

Right! Here beginneth the lesson... in no particular order.

1. You accuse posters on here of cherry picking. You have taken a part of a sentence and turned it into the be all and end all. There may have been 90K into health care last year. There are still in excess of 100K vacancies in the NHS. They need filling. I posted QUOTE only once we have zero vacancies in the NHS and other vytal areas UNQUOTE I didn't go into the specifics of other vytal areas but seemingly missed that bit, probably because it doesn't fit your narrative.

2. Doesn't exactly explain the rest? Apart from mentioning the NHS I also included that business owners and shareholders want profits to grow and that can't happen with a shrinking population. It is the richest few % who are driving governments all over Europe and the UK to get these extra bodies in to guarantee their own financial status quo at worst and to improve it if at all possible (not verbatim but that's the gist of what I wrote). You chose to throw those particular cherries away. Why? Destroys your argument? Explains exactly why these folk are being allowed in. It's not being done for you or against you, it's to protect the lofty position of the rich. Another part of my post to which you replied that you ignored.

3. 750K net immigration in 2023. Of that number, a massive 29,437 came via small boats. That's 3.924% of the net immigration.

4. Wage stifling/job stealing. I have yet to see an English fruit or hop picker claim these foreigners have taken their job and/or caused their wages to stagnate or drop.

Where I would agree with you is that immigration does need to be controlled. I've now lived in the Netherlands for 40 years, that's 10 longer than I lived in the UK. I am now the holder of dual nationality. If I commit a serious crime, I'll do my time, lose my Dutch citizenship and be sent back to the land of my birth, the UK. I don't find that harsh. It's what should happen to those entering the UK and then committing serious crime as well.

actually, your post isn't that different from I am saying or believe in.
1. whatever vacancies we need, if they can't be filled domestically, then by all means import. (not fully agree with that, because we have neglected our own via education/training/apprenticships, which will bite our arse long term). I have always said, its the rich who love mass immigration. They keep their pool of cheap labour and don't have to worry about the side effects mentioned- housing/NHS/education/transport/crime/social . GDP hasn't really gone up either and GDP per capita has plummetted.

2. I don't think the boats figures+ the extra illegals totalling 36704 are even included in that figure.

3. wage stifling- errrm its supply and demand . Its the low wage earners who are the worse off. Low-wage workers are more likely to lose out from immigration, while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain, but the effects are small
Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK has found negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers, but both effects are small. In other words, immigration is not just one of the major factors that shape low-wage workers’ prospects in the labour market.

For example, a 2022 study found that immigration to the UK from 1994 to 2016 reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners at the 5th percentile (i.e. the lowest earners in the labour market) by around half of one pence per year. The gains for top earners were also small: 1.7p per year for people at the 90th percentile of wage earners. The one thing you don't allow for either, is the booming BLACK MARKET

4. The last part is spot on. But we in the UK definitely don't do that. The army of lawyers comes out to defend any of these migrants who have committed heinous crimes, to stop deportations. Starmer was at the front in helping. Ironically, many that do get deported, pop back up a few months later.

[swaledale]

actually, your post isn't that different from I am saying or believe in.
1. whatever vacancies we need, if they can't be filled domestically, then by all means import. (not fully agree with that, because we have neglected our own via education/training/apprenticships, which will bite our arse long term). I have always said, its the rich who love mass immigration. They keep their pool of cheap labour and don't have to worry about the side effects mentioned- housing/NHS/education/transport/crime/social . GDP hasn't really gone up either and GDP per capita has plummetted.

2. I don't think the boats figures+ the extra illegals totalling 36704 are even included in that figure.

3. wage stifling- errrm its supply and demand . Its the low wage earners who are the worse off. Low-wage workers are more likely to lose out from immigration, while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain, but the effects are small
Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK has found negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers, but both effects are small. In other words, immigration is not just one of the major factors that shape low-wage workers’ prospects in the labour market.

For example, a 2022 study found that immigration to the UK from 1994 to 2016 reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners at the 5th percentile (i.e. the lowest earners in the labour market) by around half of one pence per year. The gains for top earners were also small: 1.7p per year for people at the 90th percentile of wage earners. The one thing you don't allow for either, is the booming BLACK MARKET

4. The last part is spot on. But we in the UK definitely don't do that. The army of lawyers comes out to defend any of these migrants who have committed heinous crimes, to stop deportations. Starmer was at the front in helping. Ironically, many that do get deported, pop back up a few months later.

Point 4. Starmer was a barrister. they generally are required to act whatever the nature of the case and the nature of the individual. Its not so called "leftie" lawyers that are the issue - after all I'm sure the Netherlands has a similar legal system and MA should he be threatened with deportation would be entitled to be defended. However, no doubt the actual legislation is framed in a way which allows deportation to happen, though given the Netehrlands is also an ECHR signatory, the same issues may arise.

If the Uk Government of any persuasion was to frame laws that explicitly said, citizenship will be revoked if an immigrant is convicted of a serious criminal offence, then there would be less legal challenge.

IF the Tories had focussed on negotiating a return agreement such as existed before Brexit, there would be less using boats, they didn't becuase of an anti EU ideology, after all they seem to ahve done a deal with Albania.

IF the Tories had adequately resourced the asylum and immigration services, then there wouldn't be a backlog of cases and those that were approved would now be working paying taxes and contributing to society rather than costing money. Plus of course several thousand wouldn't have been "lost".

IF the Tories adequately resourced the immigration enforcement system, then the illegals in the black market (think Chinese cockle pickers) would be picked up more often. Its not immigration thats the issue its how its managed and if instead of playing to that base of voters who are naturally xenophobic the government actually addressed the issue, there would be far less problems.

[ramAnag]

Latest opinion poll results from Survation suggest that the Tories are predicted to end up with less than 100 seats after the forthcoming General Election and that Sunak’s own seat is now in serious danger. Can we just get it over with and start again?

[Geoff Parkstone]

If that be so then the Tories will think "things can only get better" and string it out as long as possible. If you want an election asap they have to think they have a (slender) chance of avoiding humiliation

[SithHappens]

it won't be that low but it's a lost cause, just let's get it done