Can immigration actually been controlled?
I am talking about legal and illegal immigrations. I mean we can’t cope with the current levels of immigration, 700,000 new people came in last year. Where are they going to live? We don’t have enough homes, doctors, schools etc for our current population. I am not saying stop all immigrants entering but we need some control. You should be able to afford rent etc and not rely on housing benefits etc. 60% of council housing in London a foreign born lives there.
Scroll to see replies
Of course it can. However there is not the political will as the electorate consistently vote for parties that are pro-immigration in practice.
As for the deleterious impact, this is a consequence of British people consistently voting for a political party that has a pathological aversion to infrastructure investment and house building.
As for the deleterious impact, this is a consequence of British people consistently voting for a political party that has a pathological aversion to infrastructure investment and house building.
Pretty sure we already control it, we just don't fully enforce it which I agree with.
The fact we don't have enough homes, doctors etc really isn't immigrations problem it's the government and the people with the money. Immigration is often just shining a glaring light on the deficiencies imo, we talk a big game as a country so we should be able to take free passengers frankly.
Also past a point if you choose to live in London that's just what it is, you've no excuse for not knowing that everyone wants to be there prob for the same reason as you do and there's plenty of affordable and attainable homes, doctors, schools etc elsewhere. Choices.
The fact we don't have enough homes, doctors etc really isn't immigrations problem it's the government and the people with the money. Immigration is often just shining a glaring light on the deficiencies imo, we talk a big game as a country so we should be able to take free passengers frankly.
Also past a point if you choose to live in London that's just what it is, you've no excuse for not knowing that everyone wants to be there prob for the same reason as you do and there's plenty of affordable and attainable homes, doctors, schools etc elsewhere. Choices.
Piece of **** to control it, simply turn away flights and use the navy for what its meant to be there for.
On the other hand, no one actually agrees on what 'control immigration' really means. Simply cutting it down or mostly eliminating it isn't a problem. The politics behind it is though.
Equally there are the 3rd order effects and perverse consequences people always forget about. You kneecap immigration then who exactly is going to do all the jobs you refuse to? It being a matter of fact Brits dont want to scrub toilettes or change bedding very much..
On the other hand, no one actually agrees on what 'control immigration' really means. Simply cutting it down or mostly eliminating it isn't a problem. The politics behind it is though.
Equally there are the 3rd order effects and perverse consequences people always forget about. You kneecap immigration then who exactly is going to do all the jobs you refuse to? It being a matter of fact Brits dont want to scrub toilettes or change bedding very much..
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by Peter100121
I am talking about legal and illegal immigrations. I mean we can’t cope with the current levels of immigration, 700,000 new people came in last year. Where are they going to live? We don’t have enough homes, doctors, schools etc for our current population. I am not saying stop all immigrants entering but we need some control. You should be able to afford rent etc and not rely on housing benefits etc. 60% of council housing in London a foreign born lives there.
What's the source for your figure of 60%?
What do you know about the figures for emigration and deaths that frees up housing and support?
Original post by Surnia
What's the source for your figure of 60%?
What do you know about the figures for emigration and deaths that frees up housing and support?
What do you know about the figures for emigration and deaths that frees up housing and support?
Emmigration is about 300,000 per annum however the 700,000 mentioned is actually the net figure so already takes account of this.
Original post by Rakas21
Emmigration is about 300,000 per annum however the 700,000 mentioned is actually the net figure so already takes account of this.
But where's the sources for these figures? It's an unsubstantiated post, not a true news thread.
Original post by Peter100121
I am talking about legal and illegal immigrations. I mean we can’t cope with the current levels of immigration, 700,000 new people came in last year. Where are they going to live? We don’t have enough homes, doctors, schools etc for our current population. I am not saying stop all immigrants entering but we need some control. You should be able to afford rent etc and not rely on housing benefits etc. 60% of council housing in London a foreign born lives there.
It can but we lack the political will, both Sunak and Hunt are neo-liberal technocrats.
In terms of immigration there are good and bad parts..
Breaking down the July 2022-June 2023 figures..
Total immigration was 1.2 million.
Total Non-EU Migration made up ~900,000.
Total Emmigration was 500,000.
Net Migration was above the June 2022 estimate which means the revised estimates are likely to climb towards 800,000 in a few months.
We granted 169,000 non-EU work visas but critically we also granted 154,000 dependent visas. This is horrific.
Indian, Nigerian and Zimbabwian made up about 64% of these.
Net Migration for work visas was 278,000.
We granted 378,000 study visas to non-EU applicants. Critically again, we granted 96,000 dependent visas. Need i really comment on this.
Net migration of study visas was 263,000.
We granted 83,000 Humanitarian Visas to non-EU applicants. These were mostly Hong Kong, Ukranian and a few Afghans. These have all been declining.
We granted asylum to 90,000 people, including about 40,000 boat people. This is horryfying and shows how incredibly soft we are. This should below 10,000. We deported about 2,000 people.
Net immigration here was 88,000.
We granted 70,000 family visas to non-EU applicants.
Net migration of this group was 39,000.
Other non-EU visas were raw figures of 25,000 and net figures of 17,000.
We recorded 21,000 British Nationals returning home.
Net Migration of British Nationals was actually -10,000.
We granted 117,000 EU work visas.
We granted 21,000 EU Study visas.
Net migration of EU nationals was -87,000.
..
The moral of the story is that we can park EU nationals for now. More are going than arriving.
We should ideall stop British Nationals emigrating. That's about 31,000.
Non-EU migration is a big mess.
We can park the humanitarian visas, they are fair enough and in long term decline. The 'Other' Visas are okay.
The raw study visa at about 282,000 is actually not a problem and the government is reducing the length of time you can stay afterwards to 12 months. The problem here is dependents.
The work visa system is a mess, the threshold is too low and should be increased to £40,000 per annum without exception. We have people arriving for close to minimum wage jobs instead of investing in ways to remove the need for these jobs or get part of the millions of people not actively seeking work to do so.
My primary irks are asylum and dependents/family.
To start with asylum, these are statstistically the most deprived and least educated immigrants. While i don't mind special humanitarian schemes or those to allow translators and the like (i.e. those who performed a duty to us) to come, I do not believe that we should allow people to come simply because their countries are poor and they don't want to stay in Bulgaria or France. I would eradicate most asylum so lets allow ~10,000 visas and get rid of about 80,000.
Family visas and dependents are where i have a big issue. We issued 320,000 visas to people who can theoretically sit on their rears all day. This is disgrace! While some of these will be children and valid for a family visa in my opinion (family visa should only be children under the age of 16, not the spouce), we should force the spouces to apply in their own right for a work or study visa. We can allow a joint work visa application to have a threshold of £60,000 combined rather than what would be £80,000.This portion should essentially be halved (bit more or less depending on the spouce and child ratios). We would reduce by 160,000 on this aspect (though there may be a bit more via successful work/study).
In short, non-EU was over 900,000 and about 240,000 was 'bad' migration. About 110,000 is nothing to be concerned with (humanitarian/small asylum/other). About 440,000 is work and study but measures should be taken to reduce the incentive here since we are still a bit soft.
So i guess the need for immigration somewhere about the 500,000 non-EU rate. Ideally we would limit emmigration from British Nationals and EU. Perhaps we could ban duel citizenship to reduce this.
Original post by Surnia
But where's the sources for these figures? It's an unsubstantiated post, not a true news thread.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023
ONS report.
"In the year ending (YE) June 2023, the provisional figures show that the number of people emigrating out of the UK long term was 508,000, an increase of 37,000 from the YE June 2022 (Figure 2). In the YE June 2023, non-EU nationals accounted for 200,000 (39%) of this long-term total, EU nationals accounted for 215,000 (42%), and British nationals accounted for 93,000 (18%)."
My figure was actually too low originally.
(edited 2 months ago)
Of course it can be controlled, and indeed it was until around 20 years ago. What's lacking is the political will to do so.
Original post by Rakas21
Emmigration is about 300,000 per annum however the 700,000 mentioned is actually the net figure so already takes account of this.
Where did you get that info? Source?
Original post by JohnnyMony
Where did you get that info? Source?
Look three posts up.
Yes.
But doing so will require a government with some spine and common sense.
Led by a PM with guts like Suella Braverman.
Along with some changes to existing laws to emphasize uk national sovereignty and ensure that no overseas citizens are ever able to access any welfare or obtain ilr status.
Nor obtain access to any uk taxpayer funded: places at educational establishments, accomodation outside of the incarceration & detention systems, healthcare beyond a&e in exceptional circumstances.
This would require the uk ending all involvement with the ECHR and UN 1951 Convention.
But doing so will require a government with some spine and common sense.
Led by a PM with guts like Suella Braverman.
Along with some changes to existing laws to emphasize uk national sovereignty and ensure that no overseas citizens are ever able to access any welfare or obtain ilr status.
Nor obtain access to any uk taxpayer funded: places at educational establishments, accomodation outside of the incarceration & detention systems, healthcare beyond a&e in exceptional circumstances.
This would require the uk ending all involvement with the ECHR and UN 1951 Convention.
Original post by Rakas21
It can but we lack the political will, both Sunak and Hunt are neo-liberal technocrats.
In terms of immigration there are good and bad parts..
Breaking down the July 2022-June 2023 figures..
Total immigration was 1.2 million.
Total Non-EU Migration made up ~900,000.
Total Emmigration was 500,000.
Net Migration was above the June 2022 estimate which means the revised estimates are likely to climb towards 800,000 in a few months.
We granted 169,000 non-EU work visas but critically we also granted 154,000 dependent visas. This is horrific.
Indian, Nigerian and Zimbabwian made up about 64% of these.
Net Migration for work visas was 278,000.
We granted 378,000 study visas to non-EU applicants. Critically again, we granted 96,000 dependent visas. Need i really comment on this.
Net migration of study visas was 263,000.
We granted 83,000 Humanitarian Visas to non-EU applicants. These were mostly Hong Kong, Ukranian and a few Afghans. These have all been declining.
We granted asylum to 90,000 people, including about 40,000 boat people. This is horryfying and shows how incredibly soft we are. This should below 10,000. We deported about 2,000 people.
Net immigration here was 88,000.
We granted 70,000 family visas to non-EU applicants.
Net migration of this group was 39,000.
Other non-EU visas were raw figures of 25,000 and net figures of 17,000.
We recorded 21,000 British Nationals returning home.
Net Migration of British Nationals was actually -10,000.
We granted 117,000 EU work visas.
We granted 21,000 EU Study visas.
Net migration of EU nationals was -87,000.
..
The moral of the story is that we can park EU nationals for now. More are going than arriving.
We should ideall stop British Nationals emigrating. That's about 31,000.
Non-EU migration is a big mess.
We can park the humanitarian visas, they are fair enough and in long term decline. The 'Other' Visas are okay.
The raw study visa at about 282,000 is actually not a problem and the government is reducing the length of time you can stay afterwards to 12 months. The problem here is dependents.
The work visa system is a mess, the threshold is too low and should be increased to £40,000 per annum without exception. We have people arriving for close to minimum wage jobs instead of investing in ways to remove the need for these jobs or get part of the millions of people not actively seeking work to do so.
My primary irks are asylum and dependents/family.
To start with asylum, these are statstistically the most deprived and least educated immigrants. While i don't mind special humanitarian schemes or those to allow translators and the like (i.e. those who performed a duty to us) to come, I do not believe that we should allow people to come simply because their countries are poor and they don't want to stay in Bulgaria or France. I would eradicate most asylum so lets allow ~10,000 visas and get rid of about 80,000.
Family visas and dependents are where i have a big issue. We issued 320,000 visas to people who can theoretically sit on their rears all day. This is disgrace! While some of these will be children and valid for a family visa in my opinion (family visa should only be children under the age of 16, not the spouce), we should force the spouces to apply in their own right for a work or study visa. We can allow a joint work visa application to have a threshold of £60,000 combined rather than what would be £80,000.This portion should essentially be halved (bit more or less depending on the spouce and child ratios). We would reduce by 160,000 on this aspect (though there may be a bit more via successful work/study).
In short, non-EU was over 900,000 and about 240,000 was 'bad' migration. About 110,000 is nothing to be concerned with (humanitarian/small asylum/other). About 440,000 is work and study but measures should be taken to reduce the incentive here since we are still a bit soft.
So i guess the need for immigration somewhere about the 500,000 non-EU rate. Ideally we would limit emmigration from British Nationals and EU. Perhaps we could ban duel citizenship to reduce this.
In terms of immigration there are good and bad parts..
Breaking down the July 2022-June 2023 figures..
Total immigration was 1.2 million.
Total Non-EU Migration made up ~900,000.
Total Emmigration was 500,000.
Net Migration was above the June 2022 estimate which means the revised estimates are likely to climb towards 800,000 in a few months.
We granted 169,000 non-EU work visas but critically we also granted 154,000 dependent visas. This is horrific.
Indian, Nigerian and Zimbabwian made up about 64% of these.
Net Migration for work visas was 278,000.
We granted 378,000 study visas to non-EU applicants. Critically again, we granted 96,000 dependent visas. Need i really comment on this.
Net migration of study visas was 263,000.
We granted 83,000 Humanitarian Visas to non-EU applicants. These were mostly Hong Kong, Ukranian and a few Afghans. These have all been declining.
We granted asylum to 90,000 people, including about 40,000 boat people. This is horryfying and shows how incredibly soft we are. This should below 10,000. We deported about 2,000 people.
Net immigration here was 88,000.
We granted 70,000 family visas to non-EU applicants.
Net migration of this group was 39,000.
Other non-EU visas were raw figures of 25,000 and net figures of 17,000.
We recorded 21,000 British Nationals returning home.
Net Migration of British Nationals was actually -10,000.
We granted 117,000 EU work visas.
We granted 21,000 EU Study visas.
Net migration of EU nationals was -87,000.
..
The moral of the story is that we can park EU nationals for now. More are going than arriving.
We should ideall stop British Nationals emigrating. That's about 31,000.
Non-EU migration is a big mess.
We can park the humanitarian visas, they are fair enough and in long term decline. The 'Other' Visas are okay.
The raw study visa at about 282,000 is actually not a problem and the government is reducing the length of time you can stay afterwards to 12 months. The problem here is dependents.
The work visa system is a mess, the threshold is too low and should be increased to £40,000 per annum without exception. We have people arriving for close to minimum wage jobs instead of investing in ways to remove the need for these jobs or get part of the millions of people not actively seeking work to do so.
My primary irks are asylum and dependents/family.
To start with asylum, these are statstistically the most deprived and least educated immigrants. While i don't mind special humanitarian schemes or those to allow translators and the like (i.e. those who performed a duty to us) to come, I do not believe that we should allow people to come simply because their countries are poor and they don't want to stay in Bulgaria or France. I would eradicate most asylum so lets allow ~10,000 visas and get rid of about 80,000.
Family visas and dependents are where i have a big issue. We issued 320,000 visas to people who can theoretically sit on their rears all day. This is disgrace! While some of these will be children and valid for a family visa in my opinion (family visa should only be children under the age of 16, not the spouce), we should force the spouces to apply in their own right for a work or study visa. We can allow a joint work visa application to have a threshold of £60,000 combined rather than what would be £80,000.This portion should essentially be halved (bit more or less depending on the spouce and child ratios). We would reduce by 160,000 on this aspect (though there may be a bit more via successful work/study).
In short, non-EU was over 900,000 and about 240,000 was 'bad' migration. About 110,000 is nothing to be concerned with (humanitarian/small asylum/other). About 440,000 is work and study but measures should be taken to reduce the incentive here since we are still a bit soft.
So i guess the need for immigration somewhere about the 500,000 non-EU rate. Ideally we would limit emmigration from British Nationals and EU. Perhaps we could ban duel citizenship to reduce this.
Why are you so keen to restrict the personal liberty of British people by limiting emigration?
Original post by Gazpacho.
Why are you so keen to restrict the personal liberty of British people by limiting emigration?
Because Little Englanders should stay where they are put! 😀
Original post by londonmyst
Yes.
But doing so will require a government with some spine and common sense.
Led by a PM with guts like Suella Braverman.
Along with some changes to existing laws to emphasize uk national sovereignty and ensure that no overseas citizens are ever able to access any welfare or obtain ilr status.
Nor obtain access to any uk taxpayer funded: places at educational establishments, accomodation outside of the incarceration & detention systems, healthcare beyond a&e in exceptional circumstances.
This would require the uk ending all involvement with the ECHR and UN 1951 Convention.
But doing so will require a government with some spine and common sense.
Led by a PM with guts like Suella Braverman.
Along with some changes to existing laws to emphasize uk national sovereignty and ensure that no overseas citizens are ever able to access any welfare or obtain ilr status.
Nor obtain access to any uk taxpayer funded: places at educational establishments, accomodation outside of the incarceration & detention systems, healthcare beyond a&e in exceptional circumstances.
This would require the uk ending all involvement with the ECHR and UN 1951 Convention.
Wait, I recognise your username... didn't you defend child slavery? Amazing that supporting Braverman isn't your worst take.
Original post by Gazpacho.
Why are you so keen to restrict the personal liberty of British people by limiting emigration?
I'm a nationalist and care more about the economy than anything else. In this instance, i would keep people and their money in the country (the people that emigrate from the UK are normally wealthy home owners even if old, not unemployed seeking a better life elsewhere).
Original post by Rakas21
I'm a nationalist and care more about the economy than anything else. In this instance, i would keep people and their money in the country (the people that emigrate from the UK are normally wealthy home owners even if old, not unemployed seeking a better life elsewhere).
Advocating restricting the freedom of British people does not align with British values. I have no idea what country you are a nationalist of but it certainly is not Britain.
You support a political party that abandoned all focus on economic growth in favour of the cult of austerity and supported Brexit. Your poor voting choices are responsible the current patterns of immigration that is putting pressure on our economic infrastructure and our boarder economic stagnation. So I'd question the extent to which you actually care about the economy.
Depends what you mean.
The idea of significantly reducing immigration is always likely to be a popular one until people get given a full choice between reducing immigration and taking the economic consequences, and not doing so. See also, the increasing proportion of people regretting Brexit.
In terms of infrastructure, I know this sounds facile but just build more and stop blocking so much!
On the small boats issue, I think we're close to the minimum number of crossings that can take place now. Even East Germany and North Korea couldn't/can't control migration 100% – no state will ever be able to in the modern world. There's not much more (e.g. Rwanda) in terms of deterrence that's likely to be a more effective deterrent than the risk of drowing in a busy shipping lane.
The idea of significantly reducing immigration is always likely to be a popular one until people get given a full choice between reducing immigration and taking the economic consequences, and not doing so. See also, the increasing proportion of people regretting Brexit.
In terms of infrastructure, I know this sounds facile but just build more and stop blocking so much!
On the small boats issue, I think we're close to the minimum number of crossings that can take place now. Even East Germany and North Korea couldn't/can't control migration 100% – no state will ever be able to in the modern world. There's not much more (e.g. Rwanda) in terms of deterrence that's likely to be a more effective deterrent than the risk of drowing in a busy shipping lane.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Border force officer training?
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Border force oct 2022 mobile and core teams
- Advice needed
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Rishi Sunak threatens to remove UK from ECHR if Rwanda plan blocked
- Recommended city in canada to meet local girls
- essay question sociology
- i missed 3 college interviews
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- questions about physics degree
- Home office
- Help with Dual Nationality and Residential Category in UCAS application!!!!!
- Executive Officer IMIU Remote Operations Hub
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Mum not letting me move out for uni
- Woman using shady tactics?
- emigrating to australia after uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
