UK Migration Issues

OsricPearl wrote:I don't understand. You live in an island. You don't need anymore people. Don't they care about the environment and all of that?

Strangely, the fact that over-crowding is putting more pressure on the environment is not often mentioned in immigration debates (when we have them), even by the Greens. The argument is mostly about what immigrants are or are not contributing to the economy. Some parts of the economy have become dependent on cheap labour from immigrants which obviously suits some business owners. And the Governmemt would seem to prefer to hire foreign doctors for the National Health Service than train our own people. It's all very short-sighted.

Neon Knight wrote:

OsricPearl wrote:I don't understand. You live in an island. You don't need anymore people. Don't they care about the environment and all of that?

Strangely, the fact that over-crowding is putting more pressure on the environment is not often mentioned in immigration debates (when we have them), even by the Greens. The argument is mostly about what immigrants are or are not contributing to the economy. Some parts of the economy have become dependent on cheap labour from immigrants which obviously suits some business owners. And the Governmemt would seem to prefer to hire foreign doctors for the National Health Service than train our own people. It's all very short-sighted.

We are having the same problem here in the US with IT and Medicine. The Medical community conspired to bring more foreign doctors to lower wages. This was revealed this year sometime, with an leaked internal memo. Higher wages were a "problem."
The thing is that medical care is just as expensive now as it would be anyway, so what benefit did it give me?

The closest to a mainstream anti-mmigration campaign we've got is the organisation Migration Watch, headed by Lord Green, a former diplomat. He recently posted this article on a Conservative supporting website:
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/06/andrew-green-debating-immigration-has-been-marginal-to-this-leadership-election-that-should-change.html

"The situation is certainly serious. Annual net migration into the UK has averaged nearly 300,000 over the past five years – that is roughly the population of Newcastle. Yet, until Labour came to power in 1997, net migration was never more than 50,000 a year and was sometimes negative. Since 2010, nine years of Conservative Government have failed to get a grip on it, as the graph below clearly indicates.



The implications and consequences for our future are stark. A level of net migration continuing at present levels would take our population from about 66 million today to 100 million by the end of the century. Yet . . . achieving the Conservatives’ promise of reducing net migration to 100,000 a year would restrain the increase in our population to between 70 and 75 million.

As I have already suggested, the character and nature of our society are already being changed without the consent of the majority of our population, three quarters of whom support the reduction of net migration levels to the ‘tens of thousands’."

The graph above is reflected in this one:

Daily Mail, 24th January 2020:

MORE than 60 migrants were picked up in the Channel in just 24 hours despite a Home Office pledge to virtually eliminate the crossings by spring.

Eleven were rescued by French authorities yesterday after a boat, which had engine failure, was detected near Calais at 1:45 am. Ten of the passengers had mild hypothermia while one was said to be in a more serious condition after travelling in temperatures of 5C (41F).

It came after four boats carrying a total of 50 migrants were intercepted by the British and French authorities on Wednesday. It is not known how many of the 50 were brought to British soil, but the 11 passengers found yesterday were returned to Calais.

Priti Patel had pledged to halve the number of migrant crossings by October last year, but the numbers continue to soar. More than 1,850 were intercepted while illegally crossing the Channel last year, compared with just 297 in 2018.

What the Britts need to start doing is expelling "Migrants" by the buss load. But I'm afraid that the establishment doesn't have the nadds.

Now that Brexit is happening, how much more control do you think you'll have on the borders?

OsricPearl wrote:Now that Brexit is happening, how much more control do you think you'll have on the borders

By the end of 2020 we will legally have full border control, but how well the government will use that control is another matter. The current plan is to limit economic immigration to people with high-earning jobs to come to, but some groups are advising that the earnings limit should be lower, and there'll be easier rules for doctors and nurses, and then there are migrants who come by 'family reunion' rules. Like you say, I can't see them getting very tough on illegals and asylum seekers but about 93% of all our immigration is legal. I reckon net migration will have fallen a bit in a few years' time but by nowhere near the amount it needs to, so it will return as a major issue at the next general election. Scotland has said it wants to be able to set its own immigration laws but that's not going to happen.

Neon Knight wrote:

OsricPearl wrote:Now that Brexit is happening, how much more control do you think you'll have on the borders

By the end of 2020 we will legally have full border control, but how well the government will use that control is another matter. The current plan is to limit economic immigration to people with high-earning jobs to come to, but some groups are advising that the earnings limit should be lower, and there'll be easier rules for doctors and nurses, and then there are migrants who come by 'family reunion' rules. Like you say, I can't see them getting very tough on illegals and asylum seekers but about 93% of all our immigration is legal. I reckon net migration will have fallen a bit in a few years' time but by nowhere near the amount it needs to, so it will return as a major issue at the next general election. Scotland has said it wants to be able to set its own immigration laws but that's not going to happen.

Family reunion laws are a scam. They should be scrapped altogether. Doctors and nurses should be mostly locals, as these are jobs that require a great deal of empathy. Humans, being tribal, are much more likely to empathize with a person of the same in-group. I'm sorry, but it's true.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/603/reports-of-a-reduction-in-the-visa-salary-threshold-for-skilled-migrant-workers Quoting:

Alp Mehmet, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said:

"Reports in the Sunday press claim that a complex points system and a minimum salary of £25,600 are to be the basis of the post-Brexit immigration regime. But the reality is that these proposals are likely to provide easy routes for employers to bring in unlimited numbers paying as little as £17,920 per year without even advertising jobs in the UK first.

No mention of any limits or of any intention to reduce overall net migration. This is bad news for home-grown workers and for training our own, and hugely disappointing to the 30 million people who were looking for lower levels of immigration. There is little hope of this if such measures are introduced.

The government has clearly caved in to seductive pleas and huge pressure from employers who stand to benefit most from the continuing flow of cheaper labour."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8050963/Migration-Britain-outside-EU-hits-highest-level-ever.html  Quoting:

The number of people moving to Britain from outside the European Union is now at its highest level on record, official figures revealed today. Some 379,000 people came to the UK from non-EU countries, according to the latest Office for National Statistics estimates for the year to September 2019. At the same time there has been a year-on-year rise in estimated non-EU net migration of 26,000 to 250,000 - which is at its highest level since 2004.

The number of non-EU citizens leaving Britain over the same period has remained broadly stable for about six years now and is now at 129,000. While arrivals from the EU have fallen since the Brexit vote in June 2016, the number of people coming to Britain from outside the bloc has gradually increased . . .

Jay Lindop, director of the Centre for International Migration at the ONS [Office for National Statistics], said: '. . . EU net migration has fallen, while non-EU net migration has gradually increased since 2013 and is now at the highest level since 2004. Since 2016, immigration for work has decreased because of fewer EU citizens arriving for a job. Meanwhile, immigration for study has gone up and is now the main reason for migration. This is driven by more non-EU students arriving, specifically Chinese and Indian.'

Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: '. . . the government's recent actions and policy proposals will likely lead to immigration going up further. The millions who want the inflow reduced, and who voted Conservative a couple months ago, will be rightly concerned that Boris Johnson's government is not serious about tackling these absurd levels of immigration.'

Most non-EU migrants (51%, 165,000) were international students and just an estimated 27% (88,000) who were moving to the UK long-term said they were coming for work, the figures suggested. Around 15% (50,000) moved to the country for family reasons, including those accompanying someone on a work or study visa.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8333537/New-immigration-50-000-extra-non-EU-workers-families-let-UK-year.html
Quoting sub-article:

Numbers of migrant children claiming asylum in Kent after illegally crossing the English Channel have almost doubled in a year. More and more are arriving by boat because there are fewer lorries to jump on board during the virus crisis.

Kent county council says its social services are ‘under immense pressure’ with 469 unaccompanied child asylum seekers compared with 257 at this time last year. Council chief Roger Gough says a voluntary system to spread asylum claimants across the whole country has now broken down. The Home Office insists Kent got more funds to help it cope a year ago.

Last October Home Secretary Priti Patel pledged to all but stop illegal crossings by spring but figures are at record highs. In 2020 so far, 1,370 migrants have been caught and brought ashore, including 992 since lockdown began on March 23rd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53650537  Quoting:

The government has said it is committed to stopping migrants making the perilous journey to the UK in small boats. Why is it so difficult?

Towards the end of August 2019, ministers in the UK and France jointly pledged to make crossings by migrants in small boats an "infrequent phenomenon" by spring 2020. When Priti Patel met her counterpart in Paris last summer, about 1,400 people had already made it to the UK by small boat within the previous 12 months - and at least two lives had been lost. Since then, a further 5,500 people have navigated one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world to join them. The UK has spent £5.5m to try to end the crossings. Why hasn't it worked?

Stopping boats at sea
The home secretary has said she wants to make the route "unviable" and end demand by returning boats to France. But, French authorities believe they are unable to intervene in many instances, because of differing interpretations of international maritime law, she added. Calais MP Pierre-Henri Dumont said the most important thing was to ensure no more lives were lost . . .

Both international treaties and national laws determine what states can do at sea, said Dr Felicity Attard, a lecturer in international maritime law at the University of Malta. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has the right to act in its waters when faced with an "inbound vessels carrying migrants which are intending to commit a contravention of the coastal state's immigration laws," she said. But any action must also "take into account humanitarian considerations, for example, the need to protect the rights of asylum-seekers," which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, she added.

Any force used to return migrant boats to France "may only be used as a last resort, if necessary, proportionate and justified to achieve a legitimate aim," she said. Ultimately though, Dr Attard believes that "given the safety issues both to the migrants on board and to international shipping, should it wish, France would be entitled to intervene".

Sending people back
Since January 2019, 155 people who crossed the English Channel in small boats have been returned to Europe. A further 166 are due to be returned, the home secretary said last month. That is about 6% of the 5,500 people who made it to the UK since the start of 2019.

EU regulations known as "Dublin III", which determine where an asylum-seeker's claim is heard, were being used to "frustrate the returns of those who have no right to be here," the Home Office said. Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested the government would review laws that make it "very difficult to then send [migrants] away again even though blatantly they've come here illegally". But, any new system will require support from the EU countries that asylum-seekers are being returned to, immigration barrister Colin Yeo said. "If you want to send somebody to France, then you have got to do it with French agreement, you can't just launch them on a rocket into French territory," he said. Without a new agreement at the end of the Brexit transition period in January, the UK would "go from a situation where it's not easy necessarily to remove people to EU countries, to a situation where it's impossible because there is just no way of securing their agreement to accept people back," he said.

Preventing boats departing
Since October 2019, the UK has paid for 45 French police officers to patrol the coastline. Additional officers from French border police are also patrolling. More than 47% of attempted crossings have been prevented either at sea or before departing in 2020, according to the regional government in Calais. Last month, police stopped 10 times more crossings than in July 2019, it said. But, the sheer scale of the 200-mile stretch of coastline, which is populated by quiet beaches lined with sand dunes, makes it impossible to stop boats setting sail altogether, French officials say . . .

Stopping the gangs
The Home Office said it was pursuing the "heinous criminals and organised crime networks" behind the crossings. This year 23 people smugglers have been jailed and two more were charged earlier this month . . . And yet the number of people arriving on UK shores in small boats continues to rise. Authorities believe that a reduction in freight on cross-Channel ferries and trains due to coronavirus has driven more people into the hands of people smugglers organising small boat crossings. Steve Reynolds, of the NCA, told the BBC in January there was no evidence of a single gang behind the crossings. Officers had focused on cutting off the supply of boats and engines, but smugglers, who are believed to charge migrants several thousand pounds per place, took to sourcing boats further afield including the Netherlands and Germany, he said. Meanwhile, some migrants "self-facilitate", by acquiring a boat themselves and making their own way, Mr Reynolds said.

Staying in France
The Home Office has said that, instead of crossing the English Channel, people should seek sanctuary in France, which is a "safe country with a well-functioning asylum system". But the UK only receives a small proportion of all asylum seekers, with many settling in other European countries said Clare Moseley of Care for Calais. "It's a real misconception that all refugees want to come to the UK," she added. France, which has a similar population and economy to the UK, receives more than three times as many asylum applications, according to EU data. Across the EU in 2019, the rate of asylum applications averaged 14 per 100,000 residents. In the UK, it was 5 per 100,000 . . .

The tactics of French police have made it harder to dissuade those gathered in Calais from heading to the UK, she said. Since the infamous "Jungle" was cleared in 2016, smaller camps are regularly evicted and the last police operation, in mid-July, was "pretty horrific" and involved "a lot of violence and tear gas," she said. "People who have got scars on their bodies from French police are not going to want to stay in France," she added.

Other solutions
Refugee charities and French politicians have long said the solution must be to allow would-be asylum seekers to apply for sanctuary before they arrive in Britain. Mr Dumont has called for migrants to be allowed to claim asylum at British embassies across Europe. "What we would really like to see is safe and legal routes," Ms Moseley said. She would like people to be able to make applications at the British border controls in Calais, rather than needing to land in the UK. "Focusing on security and deterrents does nothing more than brutalise people," she said.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/632/one-intwoextra-homes-needed-are-due-to-immigration Quoting:

England will need to build nearly 300 homes per day solely as the result of immigration should it run at the level of last year following introduction of the Points-Based System. That is the finding of new research by Migration Watch UK.

Just over half (57%) of extra homes needed in England until the early 2040s would be the result of immigration - 107,400 per year or one every five minutes. The impact of arrivals from abroad alone would drive the need to make available nearly 2.7 million homes between 2018 and 2043 - equal to about nine cities the size of Glasgow or thirteen cities the size of Bradford (which have been 200,000 to 300,000 homes each) . . .

Even if immigration fell to 2013 levels (between 180,000 and 190,000 per year), the impact of immigration alone would still account for nearly half - 1.7 million, or 46% - of the total of 3.7 million homes estimated to be needed under that scenario by the early 2040s. This is 67,800 per year, or 186 homes per day. Yet if immigration reverted to last year's level, it would - on its own - drive the need for 294 more homes per day - over half of the total 519 per day (equal to a total of 4.7 million by 2043) that are projected to be needed to accommodate colossal and soaring demand.

Overseas net migration to England was 263,000 in 2019 and averaged nearly 260,000 from 2014 to 2019. Although immigration has fallen in the midst of the pandemic, the government’s serious weakening of work visa rules for citizens in four-fifths of all countries alongside decaying enforcement and the introduction of yet more uncapped avenues into the UK makes post-Covid immigration levels highly uncertain.

Immigration - which clearly has a massive impact on housing demand - is a factor too often ignored in commentary about the housing crisis. The arrival of a new city from overseas every year cannot help but add hugely to pressure on communities up and down the UK to bulldoze countryside - even “protected” green belt land - in order to make way for housing. Tighter immigration control is necessary to tackle the housing crisis and to protect our precious green space.



https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/01/29/the-government-has-opened-up-the-risk-of-rapid-inflows-of-millions-of-people-with-no-ability-to-control-the-numbers Quoting:

The UK pledge to grant 5.4 million people the right to come to the UK and settle permanently in the midst of a global health crisis is the opposite of ‘taking back control’ as Ministers pledged. The government have essentially abandoned control over access to long-term immigration for 5.4 million people currently residing in Hong Kong. This will strike many of the 30 million people in the UK who favour tighter immigration control as deeply unwelcome in view of successive governments’ clear and repeated promises to deliver it.

The 5.4 million total is comprised of:

5.2 million British National (Overseas) who will be free to come to the UK and to stay for as long as they wish, including having the right to settle permanently. The same privilege has been extended to nearly 200,000 young Hong Kongers aged between 18 and 23 who no longer qualify as dependants but have been included because their generation was active in the recent protests. However, in addition there are another two million Hong Kongers who are not BN(O) citizens but who can, at present, enter the UK without first obtaining a visit visa. In practice, they would then be able to claim asylum on arrival in the almost certain knowledge that the British authorities will not be able, or probably willing, to return them to Hong Kong.

The government’s central estimate is just under 300,000 arrivals over five years, of which 120,000 are expected to arrive in the first year. The UK government has a poor record when it comes to making predictions on migration . . . Of the other nearly five million, they expect only a very small fraction. The government also assume that arrivals will fall sharply after the first year. This, of course, depends on events in Hong Kong and more widely; the number could of course increase considerably. The government mention briefly that their highest estimate of arrivals in the UK is one million in the first five years of whom half a million would potentially come in the first year. There is clearly a risk that the numbers could rise very rapidly.

Commenting, Alp Mehmet, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said
’This scheme involves the right to unlimited immigration for more than five million people from Hong Kong and can only lead to more pressure on housing, the NHS and schools. It is a very far cry from “taking back control”.’

Neon Knight wrote:

Sounds to me that we need to bring back eugenics; get rid of busload of illegals/economic migrants from where-ever they came and abolish the welfare system in order to limit their procreation habits.