UK Immigration to close the borders

[webdebate]

Do you think its wise for the UK to abandon any new immigrants into the country?

Think twice before you answer.

Thanks
WD

[geriatrix]

Is it going to really benifit the UK when you see the way the government is making changes to the Immigration?

Do you think its unfair?

Make yourself heard by posting here.

Thanks for your contribution.

WD

[mulderpf]

Unemployment is at record levels (gross generalisation, I know)
Net immigration is at record levels.

Lots of people, little jobs. Either create more jobs or get rid of some people.

Current economic conditions means slow job growth; current government means people in public sector also losing jobs.

So if more jobs cannot be created, what does that leave...

[ouflak1]

Do you think its wise for the UK to abandon any new immigrants into the country?

Think twice before you answer.

Thanks
WD

In any society, you have a basic balance you have to maintain: Distribution of resources among the population with respect to its size. Right now, the UK sees itself in a position where it can not effectively distribute its resources among a growing population simply because that growing population is out-stripping this society's ability to create/utilize/efficiently distribute its resources.

The reasons for the growing population are two-fold: Immigration and birthrate. The UK has in the past taken measures to decrease its birthrate. It is now taking measures to decrease its immigration. The hope is that whatever path they take will allow those currently here (and even those who are still yet to come by any means) to have better opportunities to access the resources available in this society. Any measures a society takes to resolve these kind of issues will always be unpopular and controversial to somebody.

So in summary, do I think its wise? *shrug* I think it is irrelevant whether it is 'wise' or not. A society must always take actions to protect its own best interests, and as humans have instincts for self-preservation, so do human societies. I consider the recent and upcoming immigration policies simply a natural reaction. Whether it is 'wise' or not is a point of extreme debate. And the fact is, no matter how many people make whatever well-reasoned predictions, only time will really tell us if the decisions the UK is making now are 'wise'.

[kid13]

If high levels of both migration and unemployment are considered, I think that migrants from the EU also need to be brought into the equation. There are no restrictions on them coming and working in the UK, and given the fact that English is not the first language of any of those countries, I find it surprising they are not even subject to language tests. I'm not anti migrants from anywhere, just my thoughts

[ouflak1]

If high levels of both migration and unemployment are considered, I think that migrants from the EU also need to be brought into the equation. There are no restrictions on them coming and working in the UK, ...

Not true. Romanians and Bulgarians still have non-visa restrictions until 2014. Eight other countries only had their restrictions removed this last May. And the UK is still not a Schengen country. While that may seem trivial, you still have to atleast prove you're EU. However, with the obvious exception of Poland, I really don't think the UK is seeing any mass exoduses from their EU neighbors. And even the Polish 'migrants' seem to in general be going back to Poland. It's a very different situation from that of migrants from non-European (i.e. Asian and African) countries. That difference is the motivation for the latest initiatives, not European migration.

[kid13]

Slippery slope. Breeds the type of attitude I heard from an acquaintance - she was white from Africa and so didn't consider herself a migrant. To her, migrants were those without white skin. I hate the fact that the UK is promoting ths attitude.

[Aryan2013]

This is an interesting report to read, if someone wants to educate themselves about immigration numbers and public perception about immigrants. It's almost certain now that this tory policy of reducing numbers will be hitting most on the working class and the funny thing is: Its all in the name of protecting them!!

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/un ... ve-summary

"Low-skilled workers and asylum seekers were among the most popular targets for reductions to immigration in the survey results. But effectively all low-skilled labour migration to the UK comes from within the EU, thus limiting government control."

[Aryan2013]

Not true. Romanians and Bulgarians still have non-visa restrictions until 2014. Eight other countries only had their restrictions removed this last May. And the UK is still not a Schengen country. While that may seem trivial, you still have to atleast prove you're EU. However, with the obvious exception of Poland, I really don't think the UK is seeing any mass exoduses from their EU neighbors. And even the Polish 'migrants' seem to in general be going back to Poland. It's a very different situation from that of migrants from non-European (i.e. Asian and African) countries. That difference is the motivation for the latest initiatives, not European migration.

What is more imp. is the type of immigrants and as the above report says, almost all the EU migrants are low-skilled, so they need to be stopped as well.
It will be an interesting idea to explore the common wealth countries for more integration, atleast we have so much in common as compared to the continent.

[Aryan2013]

Something more to ponder!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... cies.thtml

"The strongest support (64 per cent) is for reducing the numbers of low-skill migrants; but for many years now, the great majority of low-skill migrants have come from the EU, which the government can do nothing about. Indeed, the most recent figures show net migration from Eastern Europe increasing."

[ouflak1]

Slippery slope. Breeds the type of attitude I heard from an acquaintance - she was white from Africa and so didn't consider herself a migrant. To her, migrants were those without white skin. I hate the fact that the UK is promoting ths attitude.

Could you provide a link substantiating the new policies or guidances relating skin color to visa requirements? Thanks!

...low-skill migrants, asylum, middle class workers...[/b]"

The problem with linking the issue to just employment and class, or even race, is that it sort of glosses over the scope of the problem that the United Kingdom is facing.

To give some scope, I'll use my own home state as reference. The state of Oklahoma in America is approximately 80% the size of England and has a population of about 3.5 million people. Yet it still has a net trade balance of about -1.2 billion dollars a year. In order for that state to function, they have to import 1.2 billion dollars worth of goods more than they export to support themselves (yes, I know it's more complicated than this, but I'm just demonstrating scale here). England is just 25% larger in size but has over 60 million people. England's trade imbalance is naturally scaled up in size (around a 100 billion pounds).

How is a country the size of England capable of supporting this many people and growing? The answer is complex, but it must be obvious to anyone here, including those posting on this thread, that England is struggling right now and has been for some time. This goes way beyond jobs and employment. This goes to infrastructure issues (NHS, education, traffic and roads, etc...), social issues, security issues, cultural issues, etc.... I suppose one might argue that if the last 2 million immigrants into the UK had all been multi-millionaires, then some of these stresses might have been eased because there would presumably be more money to ease those resulting stresses. But money can only do so much. It certainly can't make the UK physically bigger. And a 100 billion pound trade imbalance is a lot to overcome. All of those people still have live somewhere, want to drive cars, expect police protection, emergency services, schools for their kids to go to, electricity/water/gas, food of all kinds, and so on....

You can try and argue that this is a dearly beloved attitude or classist, but I truly believe that this misses the point of the critical issues that the UK is having to deal with not just now, but for its immediate future.

[sreblog]

Not true. Romanians and Bulgarians still have non-visa restrictions until 2014. Eight other countries only had their restrictions removed this last May. And the UK is still not a Schengen country. While that may seem trivial, you still have to atleast prove you're EU. However, with the obvious exception of Poland, I really don't think the UK is seeing any mass exoduses from their EU neighbors. And even the Polish 'migrants' seem to in general be going back to Poland. It's a very different situation from that of migrants from non-European (i.e. Asian and African) countries. That difference is the motivation for the latest initiatives, not European migration.

What is more imp. is the type of immigrants and as the above report says, almost all the EU migrants are low-skilled, so they need to be stopped as well.
It will be an interesting idea to explore the common wealth countries for more integration, atleast we have so much in common as compared to the continent.

I agree with you, I still belive that in UK there is lack of skilled resources specifically in IT domain(may be in medical sector too). In some cases you will surprised that such skill set not even available in EU. Even if someone qualified for this UK position in EU, it might remote chance that person wants to relcoate to UK as he is already doing well where he belongs.

[rbk1597]

How is a country the size of England capable of supporting this many people and growing? The answer is complex, but it must be obvious to anyone here, including those posting on this thread, that England is struggling right now and has been for some time. This goes way beyond jobs and employment. This goes to infrastructure issues (NHS, education, traffic and roads, etc...), social issues, security issues, cultural issues, etc.... .

I think you are ignoring some basic understanding of economics. remember demand/supply, greener pastures, better life, jobs, health, Maslow's, safetly.
Your basis for sceptism is unfound, becasue atm (at least when immigration was high) the UK provided all of the above, so as long as there are still those better factors in UK than some place, inward migration will continue. People dont just migrate for the sake of migration. There are driving factors as well as pulling factors. For UK there are many pulling factors (otherwise pple would go to other ueropean counries like poland, germany etc)
Migration is a natural phenomenon and cannot be controlled bu artificial means. migration is an expression of life, adaptation and evolution, and it is exhibited in all life forms including plants.
Your worries about space, services, security etc is far from reality. Any junior school student will tell you that space doesnt correlate or has no relationship to efficiency, let alone any of your worries above. If it was so, Libyans (who have made some of the asylum seekers to UK) who have vast amount of space land, with a very samll population, would not have wanted to refuge in the UK. Many other African countries like DRC have vast amount of land and a very miniscle population BUT STILL THEY DONT HAVE SECURITY, SERVICES, or economic growth, so whats your point?
Modern cities can house more than 60% of any counry's population without any hicup in services, human beings have so advanced in efficiency, technology and social interaction to the point that those in cities (like UK which to me is like just one big city) enjoy better services that those in remote areas like Oklahoma.
In fact, if one reads very well, or if one is well read, they will know of the recent UK gorvernment report, which has highlighted the importance of immigration in tackling the effects of Climate Change.http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2 ... e-governme
You will notice that natural disasters hit hardest those in remote rulal areas (with small population for that matter) than those in cities (thats a studied fact)
You attempted to delve into some vague economics about the balace of trade, but I cant imagine how you fail to grasp simple economic facts. economics is a layly a combination of social, political, and commercial interactions of a society.
When we consider political and cormmercial activity, in the case of UK, or USA for that matter, you have to understand the definition of international trade (imports/exports). For a long time, developed countries have 'imported' goods they already 'own' [political factors] so if you take loosely the definition of trade, you will miss the face that most British companies OWN the means of production OUTSIDE their borders, esp in developing countries.
Unless that political advantage is challenged, then the UK is bound to enjoy the the lifestyle.
If space becomes a challenge, new mordern housing will be developed, morden skyscrapers, new transport etc, and the rest of the world will try to follow suit and more and more will continue to want to come to Britain. Of course this is the ideal situation, but like I said, if the political landscape changes, then thats when thingsa change, people might satrt moving oout of the UK.
So in summary, migration is all to do with economics (which include the three factors that i highlighted) and it does not affect the destination negatively, but forces it to adapt, thereby improving its systems, ultimately thus improving its survival chances (urban societal evolution for you)

Ever pondered there are deseases, water issues, poverty, no services, low life expectancy, high mortality, etc in less populated remote, under-developed areas of the world, whilist you find none in places like Manhatan and London etc?

The UK can double its current population and actuall heve better services. better organistion and efficiency, better education and ultimately better life. Infrastructure is not static. Services change to adapt. Even importing all the goodies of luxurios life and exporting waste back. and those that toil to manufacture luxuries for us will continue in poverty as we export back nothing but waste, simply because we contraol the means, and can take in a few more in the mean while. Its all political/capitalistic etc.
I just fear China may want to change the system....

[ouflak1]

How is a country the size of England capable of supporting this many people and growing? The answer is complex, but it must be obvious to anyone here, including those posting on this thread, that England is struggling right now and has been for some time. This goes way beyond jobs and employment. This goes to infrastructure issues (NHS, education, traffic and roads, etc...), social issues, security issues, cultural issues, etc.... .

I think you are ignoring some basic understanding of economics. remember demand/supply, greener pastures, better life, jobs, health, Maslow's, safety. Your basis for skepticism is unfounded, because at the moment (at least when immigration was high) the UK provided all of the above, ....

Yes, I am purposely trying to keep my explanations curt and simple. The situation is unquestionably more complex. I do not have skepticism about the current migration situation. I just can understand the UK government's perspective. Consider this: More people have been coming into this country over the past decade than ever before, yet every public service and entity has had to face cuts. Every single one; education spending, NHS, public transport, military, etc.... Now this could certainly be happening for a variety of reasons, but there is no question that the current system is failing to continue to provide the same kind of service to its population despite the fact that that population grows. For whatever reasons you wish to attribute i.e. inefficiency, economics, or whatever, this is happening and we all see it. From the government's perspective, cutting back on immigration is a way to alleviate some of the future pressures they are facing on their ability to continue to provide for their society.

Migration is a natural phenomenon and cannot be controlled by artificial means.

Until the United Kingdom loses is sovereignty to Pakistan or India or whatever country is plowing its citizenry into the island, they most certainly can and *will* control migration into their nation. They haven't lost any wars to those countries (or any others) the last I heard.

... A bunch of stuff about 'space'... and some related matters....

You took so much space up talking about space that I think one more person won't be able to migrate into the country!

I'll just respond by saying that 'space' isn't just living space. Its space on the roads for traffic and pedestrians. It's space on public transport to move all of these people around. It's space in schools, hospitals, restaurants, and workplaces... each of which must exist to handle these people if the facilities that are currently available aren't enough. The space you need for one more person is far more than just a room you would need to house them in. Even if that person is a millionaire and can pay for all of their own space by some means, at some point there's only so much to go around no matter how much you can pay for it. The UK government is afraid that they are approaching that point in some critical areas (most notably education and health). It is more than just economics.

So in summary, migration is all to do with economics....

You can't accuse me of ignoring any kind of understanding and then make a sweeping broad overly simplistic conclusion like that.

Ever pondered (why) there are diseases, water issues, poverty, no services, low life expectancy, high mortality, etc in less populated remote, under-developed areas of the world, whilst you find none in places like Manhattan and London etc?

Believe me, there is plenty of poverty in Manhattan and in other places in America. I've lived through it. It is however nowhere near as rampant as in most places in the world. That is true.

That is because these governments are relatively capable of handling the current populations as they stand now and probably for the immediate future. But that doesn't mean they can't lose that capability. And one way the UK government fears it might lose that capability is if the population exceeds its capacity to provide the necessary service to keep these kinds of problems relatively under control.

Services change to adapt.

Well the current services certainly are adapting! They are decreasing as the population is increasing! That has got to be some kind of warning sign to you and everyone else that something is going very wrong. Whether that has to do with immigration, or even population growth in general, I grant you is debatable. But something is not right.

The UK can double its current population and actually have better services, better organization and efficiency, better education and ultimately better life. Infrastructure is not static.

Yeah I'm sure the UK could probably handle *ten times* the population it currently has, and have no problems whatsoever, IF its government was a perfectly efficient organization in a perfect dream world.

Forgetting for one moment that the world is not a perfect dream world where populations can grow without restraint and life just gets better....

The government of the UK is not a perfectly efficient organization.

(repeat) The government of the UK is not a perfectly efficient organization.

In fact, as is the trait of most government bureaucracies, it is not a particularly efficient organization at all. They are struggling to handle the current population. If the population keeps increasing too fast, for whatever reason (immigration, birth rates), they see themselves struggling even more. Further they are greatly concerned about their ability to handle a catastrophic situation should, God forbid, such occur.

I can see where they are coming from on this. I may not totally agree with some of their policies to control immigration, but I can at least see where they are coming from on this. And they do have a point in my opinion.

If the UK had significantly more landmass and natural resources, was less dependent on imports, was located in a more temperate climate, had more inherent wealth, then sure it would be easier to argue that it can handle more people without any consideration for exactly how they would go about doing this. But it is what it is: An island in the North Atlantic.