- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
It is time to wait and see what is immigration position will be concerning this matter. A lot of people and organisations have been lobbying for some sort of regularisation. A letter below is one exampleJing Wu wrote: I personally think they would do nothing, this way they won't get blamed. It’s safe. God will bless all II……
But I think the UK needs a real leader to stand out and become a doer, a politician who can put their own personal concerns aside, and let the result speaks.
I do not see Gordon Brown with this quality.
Do we really need to wait for another 4 years or even longer?
I see a lot of my hard earned money going to keep spongers in full supply of KFC and beer. I vote for a serious overhaul of the benefit system. Anyone capable of working but without a job should have to accept community work/voluntary work if they want to get benefits, whatever that community work happens to be. But that's more to do with native Brits than undocumented workers. A fact that's oft forgotten is that undocumented migrants can't claim benefits like citizens can. But if your point is that access to benefits should be more restricted to undocumented migrants allowed to work .... then, I agree.I fully concur that access to benefits should be restricted - in fact for Brits as well as newcomers.
That's very charitable of you, but I disagree. I face the same type of bureaucracy that native Brits do. Also, society treats me very well. People don't know my immigration status and they treat me with the respect and courtesy they extend to each other - I have no doubt British society treats most immigrants that way.I notice that some people here who have come legally resent bitterly that others may acheive the same rights having come illegally; but really their bitterness is I think based on the exorbitant fees, general bureaucracy, and disrespect that they encounter at all levels of society toward them.
Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.OL7MAX wrote:My call is that these precious darlings are selfish
I suppose anyone who has a job is denying someone else the opportunity to do it.Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.
So who is more selfish?
I have checked all the Immigration Acts, I still can't find what I have done that is illegal. I can point out a few other cases of people who are undocumented through no fault of their own and through breaking no laws. As an immigration barrister I'm surprised you dispute that there are people who fit the current "illegal immigrant" definition but have never broken a law.avjones wrote:Of course many of them have done something illegal - check the various Immigration Acts!OL7MAX wrote:
Here we go again. I've pointed out in other threads that "illegal immigrant" is used for hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have done nothing illegal. But it's a good lynch mob call to arms and works to whip up public frenzy. Politicians use the term because the gullible - like you - fall for the misleading impression it creates.
With all the money and they can build another big island to hold all the 40million immigrants out there...jimquk wrote:What if it was forty million? Well, at say 10K a time, that would be 400 billion pounds. Remembering that all visas would be with no recourse to public funds, could be a good business for the UK!
This is not strictly true. Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.olisun wrote:Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.OL7MAX wrote:My call is that these precious darlings are selfish
So who is more selfish?
That's very confusing.....immigrants don't create more jobs, business, investment, and expansion, and government expenditure does. That's why you need immigrants - more jobs due to a booming economy and declining population, not a booming economy because of immigrants.Rawling wrote:This is not strictly true. Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.olisun wrote:Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.OL7MAX wrote:My call is that these precious darlings are selfish
So who is more selfish?
An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.immigrants don't create more jobs
The US has been a country which welcome immigrants fro centuries and its unemployment records have below most coutries which doesnt't accept migrants. This is for simple reason migrants sometimes create the whole new industries which didn't exist before. In the middle of 1990's Israel accept more than 700,000 within couples of years and the unemployment rate actually fall. UK have accept close to million people from Eastern Europe and the level of unemployment figure haven't changed signficantly.Olisun wrote: Would you please care to explain?
Now, that is something I can't wrap my brain around. Hypothecially speaking, if we were to replace all the "illegal immigrants" with legal immigrants, how would it be better for the economy or the government to have the "illegal" ones rather than the legal ones?OL7MAX wrote:An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.immigrants don't create more jobs
You misunderstood me - which economist would disagree with me?OL7MAX wrote:An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.immigrants don't create more jobs
which I read as arguing that immigration expands the economy (through job creation), when in fact it is business that creates jobs, which expands the economy and in turn requires (skilled) immigration. I mean I don't know how giving an amnesty would help create more jobs - it would give more to state coffers, but that doesn't necessarily lead to job creation. (If the US gave an amnesty, would it mean more jobs would be created?)Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.
Plus - if you look at Rawling's next post;OL7MAX wrote:John, the poor chap is not the one who came up with the arbitary 40 million figure. Suffice to say that there's always a limit to the number of new migrants a country can take. There will be differing views on what number constitutes a reasonable limit.
I believe that given the right conditions, in the long term, it's not impossible for the UK to support an extra 40 million more than it does now. That would take the total to circa 100 million, about 30 million less than the slightly larger Japan.
An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.immigrants don't create more jobs
in my view, he (she?) is arguing that it is migrants that set up new businesses and that helps job creation. So, Germany's problem is that it doesn't have enough immigrants? If it wants its unemployment rate to fall. Or is this just a chicken-egg thing I'm reading: immigrants create jobs, or jobs create immigration? Again, this is from Rawling's arguments...The US has been a country which welcome immigrants fro centuries and its unemployment records have below most coutries which doesnt't accept migrants. This is for simple reason migrants sometimes create the whole new industries which didn't exist before. In the middle of 1990's Israel accept more than 700,000 within couples of years and the unemployment rate actually fall. UK have accept close to million people from Eastern Europe and the level of unemployment figure haven't changed signficantly.
Demand preceeds business. Where there is no demand there will be no businesses springing up. (And that is from someone who is a businessman himself.)it is business that creates jobs
The earlier point was that "immigrants don't create more jobs"... not "illegal immigrants don't create more jobs". My reply takes no account of legal vs illegal. I'm simply pointing out that more people in a location creates more local demand for goods and services. That's an indisputable fact and most seem to be in agreement on it.Hypothecially speaking, if we were to replace all the "illegal immigrants" with legal immigrants, how would it be better for the economy or the government to have the "illegal" ones rather than the legal ones?
If they had a right to remain legally then why would anyone be arguing for/against the amnesty referred to in the OP? You've lost me.I don't understand, to be honest, why people who don't fit the immigration rules think they have a right to remain legally because they've managed to evade the Home Office so far.
And is your business predicated on the number of immigrants or on a proposed amnesty? I put Rawling's point in bold, but here it is again: "If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody." So why the assumption that if an amnesty happens there will be more jobs? What business can be set up? Yeah if immigrants came to the UK then there's demand, but where is the demand from an amnesty from people already in the UK?OL7MAX wrote:Demand preceeds business. Where there is no demand there will be no businesses springing up. (And that is from someone who is a businessman himself.)it is business that creates jobs
So why would an amnesty be good for job-creation? Would(n't) it be bad for housing demand, education demand, too?which I read as arguing that immigration expands the economy (through job creation), when in fact it is business that creates jobs, which expands the economy and in turn requires (skilled) immigration. I mean I don't know how giving an amnesty would help create more jobs - it would give more to state coffers, but that doesn't necessarily lead to job creation. (If the US gave an amnesty, would it mean more jobs would be created?)