If we want to lower immigration, we need to encourage our youth to take up professions in critical areas like engineering, healthcare, teaching etc
It's easy enough to solve, just provide free pr 0% interest education in these sectors.
As for refugees, they don't cross the channel for the fun of it. We generally abide by human rights and don't remove any people seeking asylum. So why do they come here? Because Europe make it hard to apply for asylum, or refuse it.
Truth is our infrastructure, housing, healthcare and education systems are all struggling to cope. Not solely down to immigration, but the numbers currently coming in will make it hard to keep services afloat. Then again, we need the skilled labour.
for me, In an ideal world everyone should be able to live anywhere on earth they want, therefore no need for immigration in the first place.
obviously this just can't happen... but these sorts of debates/questions makes me zoom out a bit... the earth is 4.6 billion years old... Humans, or homo sapiens have been around for 300 thousand years, battling the earth's conditions, hunting, and multiplying all over the planet.
even only 500 years ago, Humans free to go about there business where ever they want (I think)
one wonders how we got to stage where you have to have immigration laws
Totally agree with all of that Diafol. That view is getting considered far right by some here in Ireland though.
“So why do they come here? Because Europe make it hard to apply for asylum, or refuse it.”
What and the UK make it easier? There are no legal routes for asylum seekers in the country, hopefully Labour will fix that but not holding my breath.
Offer free holidays to the benidorm and magaluf dog and duck English pub types. Then revoke their passports. Allow people genuinely needing shelter in their place.
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
I agree with the OP. I'd just add:
- The previous government greatly exacerbated the immigration pressures by 1) closing off many of the formal avenues to apply for asylum, meaning that many people who believed they would only be safe in the UK were driven toward unsafe and illegal routes; and 2) failing to actually assess and process asylum claims made by people in the UK, so the numbers of people stuck in limbo for years (not permitted to work, not sure if they would be deported) mushroomed, at huge cost to the taxpayer.
- We have a rapidly ageing population. The ratio of retired people to people of working age has gone from 1:4 to approaching 1:2. Retired people are living longer (hurray) but are more likely to require healthcare and other services, which the working age population will struggle to provide. We need more young people. Which means we either need to welcome more workers from overseas or to compel women to have far more babies (something that seems quite popular with the anti-immigration right, to be fair).
- Migrants should be expected to integrate, as the OP says. Overwhelmingly they do assimilate culturally, as well as providing a net positive contribution to the economy. But if we want to encourage integration, I would propose that we're much more likely to achieve this if we make the UK a welcoming country that on a cultural level and policy level embraces migrants and sees them as a source of national enrichment. When the national discourse is framed around migration being problematic, and being something we need to reduce, and the whole discussion is poisoned by alarmism and extremists, you can't blame people who arrive in this country for keeping their heads down and socialising with people from their own community of origin. I'm white/British, and if I lived next door to RDD and saw a bunch of Reform posters on my street, I'd much rather hang out with the members of my local Muslim community.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 8 minutes ago
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that in relation to the size of the country? Or just top level figures?
We generally abide by human rights and don't remove any people seeking asylum.
———
Not true since the extremist Tories got into power.
Migrants should be expected to integrate, as the OP says. Overwhelmingly they do assimilate culturally, as well as providing a net positive contribution to the economy. But if we want to encourage integration, I would propose that we're much more likely to achieve this if we make the UK a welcoming country that on a cultural level and policy level embraces migrants and sees them as a source of national enrichment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen this play out to an extent here in Wales. Those that do come here to live and learn the language, embrace the area, and contribute positively are made to feel much more welcome that the ones that come here and actively campaign to remove Welsh and our Senedd. The nicer we are to incomers the more likely they are to do the above as well. You could, I suppose, call it symbiotic.
I've written a similar post Diafol, but not as well put.
I agree with all points.
If we want to lower immigration, we need to encourage our youth to take up professions in critical areas like engineering, healthcare, teaching etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We certainly should be investing far more in educating our population. But the existing UK workforce struggles to meet the economy's requirements based on absolute numbers, due to the ageing population. If UK-born people become more highly skilled, we'll have a massive deficit in lower-skilled workers. We need more people of working age. This is why, despite the very strident 'reduce migration' rhetoric of the previous Tory government, *legal* migration numbers were very high (particularly from countries such as India and Nigeria, since we ended freedom of movement from the EU). The gravitational pull of the needs of the economy is simply more powerful than this rhetoric.
Incidentally the 'Australian style points-based' system that many on the right advocate, is about ensuring we import skilled migrants only. I'm not sure everyone who votes for such platforms realise that the corollary is that bum wiping and fruit picking will have to be done by UK citizens on minimum wage.
We need to be tougher on immigration. You shouldn't be able to come here unless you can meaningfully contribute to society. Skilled high earners or working in sectors we struggle to recruit in. That needs to be tightly managed.
The right to bring their families here needs reviewed, yes they deserve to bring them but not off the bat. There should be a threshold and those families should not be able to claim benefits / access social housing etc for a number of years. Some refinement to that would be required in the case of those coming here to do low skilled jobs we struggle to fill.
There should be a right of removal if they don't fulfil their end of the bargain. They cannot be adding to the drain on our countries finite resources, they must be a net positive.
For Asylum Seekers, we've got to take our fair share but i do think we have to continue to take steps to make it less appealing. If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
Illegal migrants. Return them as soon as possible, no right to claim asylum, no support from the government bar the absolute basics until they can be returned. That system needs to be made 100x quicker than it is currently.
Some of this is pandering slightly to those on the right wing but they have some valid concerns and if you don't appease them slightly I fear you get a hard right government at some point that will do things much more inhumanely.
As a further point on migrants assimilating. Most do to a degree but not many fully assimilate into our culture. I don't think you can force them too either and cultural exchanges are in the main a good thing but it would be good if we could avoid any immigrant culture taking over cities/areas of cities. That serves as a breeding ground for young brits to be indoctrinated by the charlatans on the far right.
So immigration, yes, numbers lower, managed well. Listen to the concerns of the local population and there should be some onus put on those coming to adhere to the traditions of the land they are coming to, not the other way around.
The problem, and this is based on my opinion on work that I have done, is that the debate around immigration has never been honest.
Mass immigration has always been done through "need". That "need" is the turmoil.
In the 60's and 70's the need was economic labour. The need in the 2000s was warmongering.
The dinghies have never been the problem, in terms.of numbers of people coming over. That is the focus but the "exacerbation" was the Kurds and afghans because of war. The big difference being there was no manual labour work in great numbers like the 60s/70s.
60w and 70s immigration was promised of work and economic prosperity. Latter immigration was benefits and housing.
Early immigration was people who hadn't been involved in war so to a large extent were "docile" and "happy" to put up with the chit coming their way. "No dogs and black/Indians" signs ignored. Latter immigration didn't put up with this.
The link between latter immigration and dinghies is big too. Often family of people already here or other links to people in UK.
Student immigration bought in big revenue yet to fiddle.numbers that's where the blocks came. Or make it harder for people marrying from their home countries. These folk were never the problem. A person marrying from "home" had to have a job earning X amount, have a property and no citizenship for 5 years so no freebies from health etc.
A lot of the current issues with immigration are chickens coming home to roost.
Elvis
For 2023 there were 67,377 asylum aplications in the UK, compared to 351,510 (Germany), 166,880 (France), 162,420 (Spain), 135, 820 (Italy). The UK population is larger than all those countries apart from Germany.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 8 minutes ago
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that in relation to the size of the country? Or just top level figures?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in the year ending December 2023. A total of 49,862 people were granted protection in the year ending December 2023 as a result of an asylum claim"
"123,864 asylum applications by refugees were received in 2023 in France — according to UNHCR. Most of them came from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and from Turkey. A total of 124,676 decisions have been made. Around 27% of them were answered positively."
So it's obvious why so many come to the UK after being rejected elsewhere
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 minutes ago
Elvis
For 2023 there were 67,377 asylum aplications in the UK, compared to 351,510 (Germany), 166,880 (France), 162,420 (Spain), 135, 820 (Italy). The UK population is larger than all those countries apart from Germany.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's applications only.
In 2024, around 13 percent of applicants in Germany obtained legal status as refugees. 22.5 percent of applicants were rejected.
How many were accepted in the UK?
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
How many were accepted in the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in the year ending December 2023. A total of 49,862 people were granted protection in the year ending December 2023 as a result of an asylum claim"
Circa 75%
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ireland were ever war torn then we'd happily take all 5m of their population I'm sure...
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's dumb is seeking safety and proceeding through countless safe countries to find a safe country
Busby
Interesting. Hopefully all countries have a fair process for allowing asylum seekers.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's dumb is seeking safety and proceeding through countless safe countries to find a safe country
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One who speaks English, or has friends or relatives here.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 59 minutes ago
Totally agree with all of that Diafol. That view is getting considered far right by some here in Ireland though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And in England. That’s the problem with the radical left, anything to the right of far left is deemed as far right bigotry.
1,200,000 people came in last year alone; this is simply unsustainable.
We used to have net migration of circa 50,000 for years and years until 1997-present.
Sign in if you want to comment
Immigration
Page 1 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 30/7/24
If we want to lower immigration, we need to encourage our youth to take up professions in critical areas like engineering, healthcare, teaching etc
It's easy enough to solve, just provide free pr 0% interest education in these sectors.
As for refugees, they don't cross the channel for the fun of it. We generally abide by human rights and don't remove any people seeking asylum. So why do they come here? Because Europe make it hard to apply for asylum, or refuse it.
Truth is our infrastructure, housing, healthcare and education systems are all struggling to cope. Not solely down to immigration, but the numbers currently coming in will make it hard to keep services afloat. Then again, we need the skilled labour.
posted on 30/7/24
for me, In an ideal world everyone should be able to live anywhere on earth they want, therefore no need for immigration in the first place.
obviously this just can't happen... but these sorts of debates/questions makes me zoom out a bit... the earth is 4.6 billion years old... Humans, or homo sapiens have been around for 300 thousand years, battling the earth's conditions, hunting, and multiplying all over the planet.
even only 500 years ago, Humans free to go about there business where ever they want (I think)
one wonders how we got to stage where you have to have immigration laws
posted on 30/7/24
Totally agree with all of that Diafol. That view is getting considered far right by some here in Ireland though.
posted on 30/7/24
“So why do they come here? Because Europe make it hard to apply for asylum, or refuse it.”
What and the UK make it easier? There are no legal routes for asylum seekers in the country, hopefully Labour will fix that but not holding my breath.
posted on 30/7/24
Offer free holidays to the benidorm and magaluf dog and duck English pub types. Then revoke their passports. Allow people genuinely needing shelter in their place.
posted on 30/7/24
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
posted on 30/7/24
I agree with the OP. I'd just add:
- The previous government greatly exacerbated the immigration pressures by 1) closing off many of the formal avenues to apply for asylum, meaning that many people who believed they would only be safe in the UK were driven toward unsafe and illegal routes; and 2) failing to actually assess and process asylum claims made by people in the UK, so the numbers of people stuck in limbo for years (not permitted to work, not sure if they would be deported) mushroomed, at huge cost to the taxpayer.
- We have a rapidly ageing population. The ratio of retired people to people of working age has gone from 1:4 to approaching 1:2. Retired people are living longer (hurray) but are more likely to require healthcare and other services, which the working age population will struggle to provide. We need more young people. Which means we either need to welcome more workers from overseas or to compel women to have far more babies (something that seems quite popular with the anti-immigration right, to be fair).
- Migrants should be expected to integrate, as the OP says. Overwhelmingly they do assimilate culturally, as well as providing a net positive contribution to the economy. But if we want to encourage integration, I would propose that we're much more likely to achieve this if we make the UK a welcoming country that on a cultural level and policy level embraces migrants and sees them as a source of national enrichment. When the national discourse is framed around migration being problematic, and being something we need to reduce, and the whole discussion is poisoned by alarmism and extremists, you can't blame people who arrive in this country for keeping their heads down and socialising with people from their own community of origin. I'm white/British, and if I lived next door to RDD and saw a bunch of Reform posters on my street, I'd much rather hang out with the members of my local Muslim community.
posted on 30/7/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 8 minutes ago
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that in relation to the size of the country? Or just top level figures?
posted on 30/7/24
We generally abide by human rights and don't remove any people seeking asylum.
———
Not true since the extremist Tories got into power.
posted on 30/7/24
Migrants should be expected to integrate, as the OP says. Overwhelmingly they do assimilate culturally, as well as providing a net positive contribution to the economy. But if we want to encourage integration, I would propose that we're much more likely to achieve this if we make the UK a welcoming country that on a cultural level and policy level embraces migrants and sees them as a source of national enrichment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen this play out to an extent here in Wales. Those that do come here to live and learn the language, embrace the area, and contribute positively are made to feel much more welcome that the ones that come here and actively campaign to remove Welsh and our Senedd. The nicer we are to incomers the more likely they are to do the above as well. You could, I suppose, call it symbiotic.
posted on 30/7/24
I've written a similar post Diafol, but not as well put.
I agree with all points.
posted on 30/7/24
If we want to lower immigration, we need to encourage our youth to take up professions in critical areas like engineering, healthcare, teaching etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We certainly should be investing far more in educating our population. But the existing UK workforce struggles to meet the economy's requirements based on absolute numbers, due to the ageing population. If UK-born people become more highly skilled, we'll have a massive deficit in lower-skilled workers. We need more people of working age. This is why, despite the very strident 'reduce migration' rhetoric of the previous Tory government, *legal* migration numbers were very high (particularly from countries such as India and Nigeria, since we ended freedom of movement from the EU). The gravitational pull of the needs of the economy is simply more powerful than this rhetoric.
Incidentally the 'Australian style points-based' system that many on the right advocate, is about ensuring we import skilled migrants only. I'm not sure everyone who votes for such platforms realise that the corollary is that bum wiping and fruit picking will have to be done by UK citizens on minimum wage.
posted on 30/7/24
We need to be tougher on immigration. You shouldn't be able to come here unless you can meaningfully contribute to society. Skilled high earners or working in sectors we struggle to recruit in. That needs to be tightly managed.
The right to bring their families here needs reviewed, yes they deserve to bring them but not off the bat. There should be a threshold and those families should not be able to claim benefits / access social housing etc for a number of years. Some refinement to that would be required in the case of those coming here to do low skilled jobs we struggle to fill.
There should be a right of removal if they don't fulfil their end of the bargain. They cannot be adding to the drain on our countries finite resources, they must be a net positive.
For Asylum Seekers, we've got to take our fair share but i do think we have to continue to take steps to make it less appealing. If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
Illegal migrants. Return them as soon as possible, no right to claim asylum, no support from the government bar the absolute basics until they can be returned. That system needs to be made 100x quicker than it is currently.
Some of this is pandering slightly to those on the right wing but they have some valid concerns and if you don't appease them slightly I fear you get a hard right government at some point that will do things much more inhumanely.
As a further point on migrants assimilating. Most do to a degree but not many fully assimilate into our culture. I don't think you can force them too either and cultural exchanges are in the main a good thing but it would be good if we could avoid any immigrant culture taking over cities/areas of cities. That serves as a breeding ground for young brits to be indoctrinated by the charlatans on the far right.
So immigration, yes, numbers lower, managed well. Listen to the concerns of the local population and there should be some onus put on those coming to adhere to the traditions of the land they are coming to, not the other way around.
posted on 30/7/24
The problem, and this is based on my opinion on work that I have done, is that the debate around immigration has never been honest.
Mass immigration has always been done through "need". That "need" is the turmoil.
In the 60's and 70's the need was economic labour. The need in the 2000s was warmongering.
The dinghies have never been the problem, in terms.of numbers of people coming over. That is the focus but the "exacerbation" was the Kurds and afghans because of war. The big difference being there was no manual labour work in great numbers like the 60s/70s.
60w and 70s immigration was promised of work and economic prosperity. Latter immigration was benefits and housing.
Early immigration was people who hadn't been involved in war so to a large extent were "docile" and "happy" to put up with the chit coming their way. "No dogs and black/Indians" signs ignored. Latter immigration didn't put up with this.
The link between latter immigration and dinghies is big too. Often family of people already here or other links to people in UK.
Student immigration bought in big revenue yet to fiddle.numbers that's where the blocks came. Or make it harder for people marrying from their home countries. These folk were never the problem. A person marrying from "home" had to have a job earning X amount, have a property and no citizenship for 5 years so no freebies from health etc.
A lot of the current issues with immigration are chickens coming home to roost.
posted on 30/7/24
Elvis
For 2023 there were 67,377 asylum aplications in the UK, compared to 351,510 (Germany), 166,880 (France), 162,420 (Spain), 135, 820 (Italy). The UK population is larger than all those countries apart from Germany.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
posted on 30/7/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 8 minutes ago
Also, pretty sure all the large mainland European countries take in more asylum seekers than the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that in relation to the size of the country? Or just top level figures?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in the year ending December 2023. A total of 49,862 people were granted protection in the year ending December 2023 as a result of an asylum claim"
"123,864 asylum applications by refugees were received in 2023 in France — according to UNHCR. Most of them came from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and from Turkey. A total of 124,676 decisions have been made. Around 27% of them were answered positively."
So it's obvious why so many come to the UK after being rejected elsewhere
posted on 30/7/24
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
posted on 30/7/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 minutes ago
Elvis
For 2023 there were 67,377 asylum aplications in the UK, compared to 351,510 (Germany), 166,880 (France), 162,420 (Spain), 135, 820 (Italy). The UK population is larger than all those countries apart from Germany.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's applications only.
In 2024, around 13 percent of applicants in Germany obtained legal status as refugees. 22.5 percent of applicants were rejected.
posted on 30/7/24
How many were accepted in the UK?
posted on 30/7/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
How many were accepted in the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in the year ending December 2023. A total of 49,862 people were granted protection in the year ending December 2023 as a result of an asylum claim"
Circa 75%
posted on 30/7/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ireland were ever war torn then we'd happily take all 5m of their population I'm sure...
posted on 30/7/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's dumb is seeking safety and proceeding through countless safe countries to find a safe country
posted on 30/7/24
Busby
Interesting. Hopefully all countries have a fair process for allowing asylum seekers.
posted on 30/7/24
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
If we are not the first safe country then by and large they should not be given asylum.
———
This is dumb, the geography of the British Isles renders it nearly impossible to arrive at as the first safe country for the vast majority of asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's dumb is seeking safety and proceeding through countless safe countries to find a safe country
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One who speaks English, or has friends or relatives here.
posted on 30/7/24
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 59 minutes ago
Totally agree with all of that Diafol. That view is getting considered far right by some here in Ireland though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And in England. That’s the problem with the radical left, anything to the right of far left is deemed as far right bigotry.
1,200,000 people came in last year alone; this is simply unsustainable.
We used to have net migration of circa 50,000 for years and years until 1997-present.
Page 1 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10