Immigration
Feb. 15th, 2005 09:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueLooks like Immigration is shaping up to be a big election issue.
Both the 'major' players are claiming that they're going to control, throttle back, and otherwise reduce immigration.
I don't see what they're on about. What's wrong with people coming to our country to live and work? Sure this is a *good* thing.
Oh yes, there's the argument about not enough infrastructure to support immigrants. But really, how do you think those things are paid for? Tax on the workforce, ergo if they become a working member of society, they pay taxes etc.
The other argument, is of course 'they're taking our jobs'. Which is frankly, utter rubbish - jobs aren't a finite resource. There are no companies (as far as I'm aware, anyway) that have declared that they won't ever employ more than a set number of workers.
More population, means more demand for services and goods, which means _more_ industry. Better still if the incomers are already skilled, or wanting to learn.
Some years back, there was a large scale immigration of indians. Now, the contribution made to the country is notable - many doctors and graduates have come from this background which have inherited a very strong work ethic.
So why _are_ both our major parties announcing xenophobic (or some might even say facist) policies?
In my opinion, one of the strongest positive factors about this country is it's diversity. Some might even say it's the highest in the world. This, is surely something to include and embrace - pushing away 'those that are different' is just laying the foundations of racism.
Both the 'major' players are claiming that they're going to control, throttle back, and otherwise reduce immigration.
I don't see what they're on about. What's wrong with people coming to our country to live and work? Sure this is a *good* thing.
Oh yes, there's the argument about not enough infrastructure to support immigrants. But really, how do you think those things are paid for? Tax on the workforce, ergo if they become a working member of society, they pay taxes etc.
The other argument, is of course 'they're taking our jobs'. Which is frankly, utter rubbish - jobs aren't a finite resource. There are no companies (as far as I'm aware, anyway) that have declared that they won't ever employ more than a set number of workers.
More population, means more demand for services and goods, which means _more_ industry. Better still if the incomers are already skilled, or wanting to learn.
Some years back, there was a large scale immigration of indians. Now, the contribution made to the country is notable - many doctors and graduates have come from this background which have inherited a very strong work ethic.
So why _are_ both our major parties announcing xenophobic (or some might even say facist) policies?
In my opinion, one of the strongest positive factors about this country is it's diversity. Some might even say it's the highest in the world. This, is surely something to include and embrace - pushing away 'those that are different' is just laying the foundations of racism.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:23 am (UTC)I'm not against immigration, I'm against the fact that there's so many people coming in for a free lunch, and that if they don't contribute to the country in some way, or their illegal asylum seekers, they're not asked politely to leave with that enforced...
If that makes any sense?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:37 am (UTC)We have a large fraction of the population either unemployed, or earning low enough to not have to be paying any tax, claiming benefits.
Shall we throw out everyone who's been on the dole for more than 90% of their working life?
What about the students?
And where else are they going to go, what are they going to do if we _do_ tell them to just 'take a hike'.
If instead, we recognised that they were arriving and _not_ forcing immigrants to dodge the system, we'd have a chance of integrating them into society, bring them up to speed on English, our legal system, etc. and then turn them into productive members of society in a relatively short time frame.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:42 am (UTC)By comparison, the Job seekers allowance (UK unemployment benefit) is a small amount which is means tested, taxable and runs for 6 months. After six months you don't get it. It can be stopped if you can't show that you are looking for work.
The UK is a tough option in comparison to the rest of Europe. Those people who arrive here have therefore shown determination, commitment and drive to choose the UK over the rest of Europe. These are useful personal qualities and are good traits in any citizen.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:44 am (UTC)I'm all for people to come in, be useful and be part of the country, but I think there needs to be checks such as 'What do you expect in the UK?' and a mention that yes, they need to work, and yes they have to have checks and stuff... I'm against people thinking that they can find work unskilled very easily and I think that we wouldn't /need/ to turn them away if they knew what to expect and had a realistic idea before they applied/snuck in, so that they /could/ apply for asylum, etc and be productive...
Meh. Rambling. Sorry. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:47 am (UTC)We do have the NHS which will treat anyone...
I'm just saying I don't think the immigrants have a realistic view of the UK, so that's why we get so many... The PR has done it's job too well...
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 10:58 am (UTC)After that six months (or from the beginning, if you've not paid enough NICs) you move on to income based JSA.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:04 am (UTC)Do we have unemployed because there 'just aren't any jobs', because 'there isn't a job that they are prepared to do' or because they don't really want to work for a living?
In the former, well, if there's an increase in population in an area, then logically there will also be an increase in 'support service demand'. Subsidised initially by the taxpayer, true, but suddenly there will be available jobs.
If it's because there isn't jobs they want to do, then the same thing applies. There's a proportion of blue collar vs. white collar jobs and they tend to scale linearly with one another.
Or if the latter, it's a moot point.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:07 am (UTC)Actually, there aren't large numbers of people here for free lunches. Find the real statistics, not the Daily Mail fabrications.
illegal asylum seekers
What's one of those? Someone who is seeking asylum is just an asylum seeker. Until his claim is rejected he remains an aslyum seeker.
I'd like to see a much simpler immigration policy, with clear provision for economic migrants to move here and work legally without too much red tape ie. reducing the incentive for people in that position to claim aslyum. I'd also like to see asylum claims being dealt with more speedily and for those who aren't granted asylum provision made to return them to their home country.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 12:43 pm (UTC)What I have experienced from the few refugee/immigrants that I have met are, hard working, intelligent people, often with families they wish to protect and support. Many are friendly and look forward to contributing to this country which has offered them a home and in some cases protection from persecution.
The 'They're taking our jobs excuse sucks.. because the jobs these people are getting are little more than grunt work. They will take anything and work for not-much. so if anything they are being majorly exploited by us. Then vilified for taking jobs that British people think are too low paid or too menial for them. God forbid an immigrant takes a job picking potatoes there by stopping some know nothing chav/townie from getting the job he didn't try for anyway:O.
I do think that maybe it not the immigrants that are the let down but a benefits sytem that allows illegal immigrants to 'sponge money off the system'. But as far as i'm aware Lawful immigrants do have right according to our law. And they should be able to exercise those rights as does any other Natural Born member of this nation.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 06:44 pm (UTC)"Y'know all those problems with the country? The graffiti, the rude kids and failing schools, the drugs, the fact you haven't got that £30K-a-year job you always felt you deserved, the lack of morals, decency and proper old-school religion? Well, it's all their fault. Vote for us and we'll make sure the UK stops letting 'em in."
It's always easier to convince someone that these problems are someone else's fault than it is to convince them that they might just need to stop sitting on their arse and help to fix them...
Einstein was an asylum seeker
Date: 2005-02-15 10:16 pm (UTC)A large percentage of asylum seekers who are initially refused leave to stay are found on appeal to have been wrongly refused.
I declare an interest as, like Mr Howard, my parents were asylum seekers. They were among the lucky ones. Other members of my family, not so lucky, died in Europe in the early 1940s.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-16 03:02 pm (UTC)