Has immigration had an overall positive or negative effect on Britain?

jank

Curiously, does anyone actually oppose an Australian Immigration points based system or is the argument running on auto-pilot?

ancapailldorcha

I do. I believe it's completely unnecessary, would be a waste of resources and would be ultimately detrimental.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do. I believe it's completely unnecessary, would be a waste of resources and would be ultimately detrimental.

Yet, Australia has none of the issues with immigration the UK has. Case in point. I am now an Australian Citizen and it is only next year that I can have full access to the same benefits as everyone else, this is after living here over 5 years already, fully employed. Australia also has no major party that advocates immigration control. Now in the UK even Labour are or at least were promising more control on immigration.

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Yet, Australia has none of the issues with immigration the UK has. Case in point. I am now an Australian Citizen and it is only next year that I can have full access to the same benefits as everyone else, this is after living here over 5 years already, fully employed. Australia also has no major party that advocates immigration control. Now in the UK even Labour are or at least were promising more control on immigration.

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

What issues would these be exactly? I've met one person who wanted to move to Australia as a skilled migrant and it's taken him well over a year to get through the red tape.

Manach

My own 2c, to the OP's question, is depends on the numbers involved. Borrowing from a recent book by John Lancaster he mentions the long and short term consequences of immigration. Former is overwealming local services with new incomers, latter is new workers to support the welfare state. Thus the underlying reason for such polities would need to be put in context.

ancapailldorcha

Manach wrote: »

My own 2c, to the OP's question, is depends on the numbers involved. Borrowing from a recent book by John Lancaster he mentions the long and short term consequences of immigration. Former is overwealming local services with new incomers, latter is new workers to support the welfare state. Thus the underlying reason for such polities would need to be put in context.

Would you have the name of that book? I've added Immigrants: Your country needs them to my list but not got round to it yet.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What issues would these be exactly? I've met one person who wanted to move to Australia as a skilled migrant and it's taken him well over a year to get through the red tape.

Ok let me clarify again. Australia does not have issues (as in social issues as a result of) with immigration at present as none of the major parties support stricter controls.

The opposite is true in the UK, hence the issues that were put to the forefront at the election and the promised forthcoming referendum on the EU.

The Australian system may be long sometimes buts its transparent, fair and race/colour/sex blind. The Uk system actually discriminates more against people as you get in by accident of birth, not qualifications or skills.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Ok let me clarify again. Australia does not have issues (as in social issues as a result of) with immigration at present as none of the major parties support stricter controls.

The opposite is true in the UK, hence the issues that were put to the forefront at the election and the promised forthcoming referendum on the EU.

The Australian system may be long sometimes buts its transparent, fair and race/colour/sex blind. The Uk system actually discriminates more against people as you get in by accident of birth, not qualifications or skills.

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

So, overwhelmed NHS, strained schools and a shortage of houses and you need people to explain why adding a third of a million people a year will add to the problems?!?!? This from the person that believes every migrant man, woman and child contributes £70,000 to the exchequer.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

You are barking up the wrong tree. Are you denying that there is a perception of an immigration problem in the UK, if so then why do Labour advocate immigration control? Why did Labour admit that their policy in 2004 was a huge mistake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10445585/Labour-made-a-spectacular-mistake-on-immigration-admits-Jack-Straw.html

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

You are barking up the wrong tree. Are you denying that there is a perception of an immigration problem in the UK, if so then why do Labour advocate immigration control? Why did Labour admit that their policy in 2004 was a huge mistake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10445585/Labour-made-a-spectacular-mistake-on-immigration-admits-Jack-Straw.html

Perception? I thought we were talking about immigration itself, not perception. Of course there is a perception problem.

And at no point have I claimed that Labour are the perfect party, just preferable to the Tories.

jank

Ah progress! So there is a perception issue that immigration is too lax and Labour along with the Tories have vowed to control it.

There is no such wide-spread perception problem in Australia with political parties vowing to control immigration. Hence why a I mentioned the success of the skilled based points system.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Ah progress! So there is a perception issue that immigration is too lax and Labour along with the Tories have vowed to control it.

There is no such wide-spread perception problem in Australia with political parties vowing to control immigration. Hence why a I mentioned the success of the skilled based points system.

Such a system would violate the EU constitution fortunately. In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

Who are the anti-immigration crowd? Are you talking about the BNP?

ancapailldorcha

I was speaking generally.

Well_H0ly_God

Positive effect.

Sure aren't the foreigners paying for the Brits welfare..?

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such a system would violate the EU constitution fortunately. In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

Yahtzee!!

Much appreciated for proving my point I made in this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95405590&postcount=104

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

So it seems that there is really no argument I have heard of or have been put forward which would invalidate the reasoning behind an Australian pointed based skills system.

Hence there here and now regarding a referendum on membership of the EU and the major parties promising controls on immigration.

Also, there is no EU constitution at least one that was widely ratified. Lots of treaties though.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Yahtzee!!

Much appreciated for proving my point I made in this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95405590&postcount=104

I didn't prove any point you made.

jank

Au contraire, no one has actually opposed the idea itself of an Australian skills based points system. One can debate the pros and cons on the merits of such a system, yet no one does.
Invariably, the debate leads up the tried and well worn cul de sac of "EU Treaties /end debate..."

Now of course for the next two years we will have talk of a UK referendum on the EU and what concessions and reform they can get, if any.

ancapailldorcha

I strongly oppose the idea on the basis that it's unnecessary. The only party who are in favour of it thankfully have only one seat.

Incidentally, we already have an Australian-style points system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Invariably, the debate leads up the tried and well worn cul de sac of "EU Treaties /end debate..."

The EU treaties require the free movement of workers. We either allow free movement of workers, or we leave the EU. What's to debate?

Well_H0ly_God

There is a case for open borders that can be approached from pretty much any argument and don't ultimately rest on the simple fact that political treaties exist. The case for morality and those in a practical sense stretch both libertarians, egalitarians and utilitarian perspectives.

From a Libertarian standpoint it can be assumed the principle of natural rights in that free movement cannot be restricted unless of course there is strong evidence to suggest that migration implication infringes on the right's of others. Ultimately, the issue of self-ownership versus state ownership comes into play here. If you accept that people are not property then no state can prohibit the free desires of free people. In other words, if your principles align with the notion of "leaving others alone" then you accept the hypocrisy of actively engaging in the restrictions of free movement therefore discarding your obligation to others in the sense that their rights are of less importance than yours.

But it goes further - research has found that 82% of Haitians escaped devastating poverty only by leaving Haiti giving cause to the utilitarian approach. Gross Domestic Product can be increased a whopping 150% if the free movement of labour compliments the free movement of capital. Opening the borders to, not only the peoples of the European Union, but to those of the entire world would end global poverty and hunger in as little as five years providing a net benefit to the human species. In fact, we could double the world's GDP in ending global apartheid. It takes us back to the case of Jim Crow or that of South Africa where human beings were not only segregated depending on the colour of their skin but impacted on the enterprise, ingenuity and collaborative efforts - an economic drain by disallowing certain individuals to participate in the market whether sellers or buyers, customers or otherwise. Where are the moral cases to be made for equal opportunity? The encouragement of human capability?

What are the benefits to the migrant? Increase standards of living through increased pay without up-skilling and as there exists a positive correlation between income, happiness and health - the results speak for themselves. If you prohibit the free movement of people then you burden third world nations into becoming economic wastelands through a brain drain leaving nothing but those unable to help themselves rotting in a cage to await the inevitable. The idea of overpopulation is nothing but an absurd insinuation particularly when the entire global population could live comfortably in a three bedroom home side by side in an area the size of France.

Open the borders I say and open your heart.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU treaties require the free movement of workers. We either allow free movement of workers, or we leave the EU. What's to debate?

You sound like Labour leading up to this election, hence why they got trounced. An EU referendum is going to happen within the next 2-3 years. There will be a hell of a debate going on from both sides. If the best the Yes side can muster is the above response then they best not say anything.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

You sound like Labour leading up to this election, hence why they got trounced.

You seriously think that it's this simple?

jank

The head in the sand attitude to it, as if the UK has no control over its faith in this is one of the reasons why now the EU referendum is happening. Labour just conceded ground over this topic. UKIP forced the issue and the Tory's in many ways had to concede ground as they did want to be outflanked in the way that Labour were outflanked by the SNP in Scotland. On the issue of immigration, Labour were seen as weak. All the polls show this. With an EU referendum announced by the Tories they have taken some sort of leadership on the topic. Well be interesting to see how it turns out now.

Note I am not really in favour of the UK leaving the EU but not ignoring the reality from people I know on the ground in the UK.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

The head in the sand attitude to it, as if the UK has no control over its faith in this is one of the reasons why now the EU referendum is happening. Labour just conceded ground over this topic. UKIP forced the issue and the Tory's in many ways had to concede ground as they did want to be outflanked in the way that Labour were outflanked by the SNP in Scotland. On the issue of immigration, Labour were seen as weak. All the polls show this. With an EU referendum announced by the Tories they have taken some sort of leadership on the topic. Well be interesting to see how it turns out now.

Note I am not really in favour of the UK leaving the EU but not ignoring the reality from people I know on the ground in the UK.

I very much doubt that Labour lost due to losing a bit of ground here. If I had to blame one single factor, it'd be the Murdoch press's lies regarding Gordon Brown causing the crash with overspending.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I very much doubt that Labour lost due to losing a bit of ground here. If I had to blame one single factor, it'd be the Murdoch press's lies regarding Gordon Brown causing the crash with overspending.

Murdoch is like the Denis o'Brien of Ireland. The bogey man pulling the strings. Classic example of cognitive dissonance. In a way to explain the unexplainable, people look for some higher power as a way to explain, rationally what has happened. This time the Murdoch controlled press.

In any event, Gordon Brown left the UK with the highest deficit in the G20 and a disastrous financial position which the Tories have managed to bring back into line.






Pictures taken from the non Murdoch controlled Guardian.

ancapailldorcha

The UK has a finance-based economy which was always going to recover. The Tories' and indeed Labour's economic plans have been derided by several economists including Paul Krugman. It's noteworthy that Labour won in the 90s only when they gained Murdoch's support. I'm not saying that it was his choice, merely that he enjoys too much power over the British press.

Do you even know what cognitive dissonance is? There are multiple reasons why Labour lost but you insist on picking out some villain be it some absurd picture or immigration.

Well_H0ly_God

Miliband is a spoofer.

That's the reason Labour lost.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK has a finance-based economy which was always going to recover. The Tories' and indeed Labour's economic plans have been derided by several economists including Paul Krugman. It's noteworthy that Labour won in the 90s only when they gained Murdoch's support. I'm not saying that it was his choice, merely that he enjoys too much power over the British press.

Do you even know what cognitive dissonance is? There are multiple reasons why Labour lost but you insist on picking out some villain be it some absurd picture or immigration.

Em..

Labour won those elections because they campaigned from the centre.
Tony Blair's quote last year said it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11318289/Tony-Blair-Ed-Miliband-will-not-win-the-general-election-because-of-lurch-to-the-left.html

The former prime minister, the most electorally successful politician in Labour history, said that May’s general election risks becomes one in which a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-labour-must-return-to-centre-ground-to-claim-victory-in-five-years-time-10239215.html

All other reasons are secondary.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

You sound like Labour leading up to this election, hence why they got trounced. An EU referendum is going to happen within the next 2-3 years. There will be a hell of a debate going on from both sides. If the best the Yes side can muster is the above response then they best not say anything.

See, that's not a rebuttal to my point, which is that EU membership requires the free movement of labour. I'm well aware that there are some people who are bitterly unhappy that this is the case, but they seem to be operating under the illusion that being unhappy about something means that it ain't so.

If your view is that people who bring (shock! horror!) facts to the discussion would be better off not saying anything, then I'm sorry, but that's not the sort of "debate" I want any part of.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Em..

Labour won those elections because they campaigned from the centre.
Tony Blair's quote last year said it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11318289/Tony-Blair-Ed-Miliband-will-not-win-the-general-election-because-of-lurch-to-the-left.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-labour-must-return-to-centre-ground-to-claim-victory-in-five-years-time-10239215.html

All other reasons are secondary.

So now it's the shift to the left? Make up your mind.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So now it's the shift to the left? Make up your mind.

Well clearly there are difficulties in comprehension here. I find myself repeating myself quite a bit.

The primary reason for the election defeat is Labour lurching from the centre to the left. Linked to this there are many secondary reasons, a growing economy after the disaster of Brown, Miliband seen as a weak leader, Labour seen as weak on immigration, seen as out of touch with the electorate generally.

Would you deny any of these, or do pin the blame to one arch-villain pulling the strings like some James Bond movie.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

See, that's not a rebuttal to my point, which is that EU membership requires the free movement of labour. I'm well aware that there are some people who are bitterly unhappy that this is the case, but they seem to be operating under the illusion that being unhappy about something means that it ain't so.

If your view is that people who bring (shock! horror!) facts to the discussion would be better off not saying anything, then I'm sorry, but that's not the sort of "debate" I want any part of.

I don't think anyone in the UK who is unhappy about the free movement of Labor, which applies to the UK are under some illusion that it is not a reality. That's rather a bizarre statement given all that has been made of the EU referendum.

Those who are most dissatisfied now will have their chance and ask the electorate sometime in the next 24 months whether or not people want to be beholden to this very fact, thus will campaign for a vote to leave the EU and adopt a new immigration system.

So we have now established the facts that indeed the UK are obliged currently (key word there) to keep its word on the free movement of Labor, with the referendum on the horizon no doubt people will be wondering if the UK leave the EU what policy they will implement in its place.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

I don't think anyone in the UK who is unhappy about the free movement of Labor, which applies to the UK are under some illusion that it is not a reality. That's rather a bizarre statement given all that has been made of the EU referendum.

Those who are most dissatisfied now will have their chance and ask the electorate sometime in the next 24 months whether or not people want to be beholden to this very fact, thus will campaign for a vote to leave the EU and adopt a new immigration system.

So we have now established the facts that indeed the UK are obliged currently (key word there) to keep its word on the free movement of Labor, with the referendum on the horizon no doubt people will be wondering if the UK leave the EU what policy they will implement in its place.

No argument with any of that. My issue is with those who believe that the UK can negotiate a better deal with the EU, and that that better deal involves restrictions on the free movement of labour.

Of course the UK will be in a position to curb immigration from the EU if it leaves the union. That's so self-evident that it never occurred to me that it's what you were arguing.

FreudianSlippers

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

3-5 years ,agreed .

The Directives and Treaty specifically prohibit restrictions on entitlements on nationality, as you know., if you are a worker and workers of the host Member State has no such requirements to contribute (after 3-5 years). The German must be treated similarly to an Irish person , in similar situations . All workers, irrespective of nationality must be considered on the same basis (of course unemployment benefit does require contributions, while unemployment allowance is means tested)

If you are a student however, and only a student (and not a part time worker) then, the German might be expected to reside in the Host state for 3 years, compared to whatever is required of an Irish person , if any (Article 20 or 25 of Directive 2004/38EC)

That's really not a big deal, what is a big deal is the definition of a worker, and, for how long you can still be considered a worker if you are merely job searching;)




Is that an opinion or a fact?

If it is an opinion, fair enough, personally I would agree with you.

If it is a fact, (according to you) , well, then, I am afraid, you are grossly misinformed . You are wrong.

Working 10-15 hours a week in a supermarket , cleaner , or any other manual labour, provided that you are working for another person IS NOT deemed as marginal and ancillary by the European Courts. It is accepted that you are a worker. Speaking as a person who has assisted people in those circumstances in getting their non eu spouses residency, I can attest to it. If need be, I could spend a considerable period of time outline the facts of the case law.

If you read the facts of the cases that you cited, and many of the other ones, you could be under no illusion that labour between 10 -15 hours ain't marginal or ancillary . It all depends on the circumstances as well. Europe has seen far more questionable cases than the examples I have set out.Suffice to say, some of the stuff over the years is bonkers, as standards from the more lean years of 1980's still apply today

It has genuinely been a long time since I've read-up on workers, as I don't work at all in that field of law, but I'd be interested to see the cases to which you refer.

Lt J.R. Bell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It has genuinely been a long time since I've read-up on workers, as I don't work at all in that field of law, but I'd be interested to see the cases to which you refer.

Well, you could start by reading the cases that you , yourself cited , and note the case law which those cases cited.

Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 53/81 (1982). EUR-Lex

Raulin v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, Case C-357/89 (1992). EUR-Lex

Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 139/85 (1986). EUR-Lex
Megner and Scheffel (C-444/93).

Genc (C-14/09)

Udo Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 196/87 (1988). EUR-Lex

R v IAT ex p Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745

They maybe old, but none of these cases have been overruled
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=953&intPageId=1221&langId=en


Interesting case involving a "worker" and social welfare , Collins v Secretary for Pensions
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?docid=61560&doclang=en

Directive 2004/38EC
EU Regulation 1612/68 (mostly repealed,bar Article 7 and 12)
Regulation 492/2011

FreudianSlippers

I have read all the ones I cited. I thought as much was clear.

Lt J.R. Bell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have read all the ones I cited. I thought as much was clear.

If you did, then, you wouldn't have come to the conclusion that you already did. Anyway, the facts if the other cases, (there's more) are mad. I thought because it was the 1980s, you know recession etc,that might explain the laxed attitude, but no, the principles are still there. The Collins case is useful as it gives a history of the law to-date, you will see that chap (Irish funny enough) hadn't worked in a long time

Then you have the Teixeira and Ibrahim cases, though based on the citizen article rather than Worker, still have elements that allowed the tenuous worker link of the EU father to continue to be effective even after he left (ie regulation 1612/68)

Kempf case is interesting

Well, now you know

FreudianSlippers

If I recall Kempf correctly, the important part of that decision was the determination that just because part-time work left the individual in need of supplemental income (from the state or otherwise), it didn't automatically follow that the work was not genuine and effective.

I would agree it sets the bar low, but it doesn't automatically follow that all part-time work would be genuine and effective. Particularly in the context of the UK, I believe there are many EU nationals entering the UK to claim benefits and do work that is not genuine and effective.

Lt J.R. Bell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If I recall Kempf correctly, the important part of that decision was the determination that just because part-time work left the individual in need of supplemental income (from the state or otherwise), it didn't automatically follow that the work was not genuine and effective.

I would agree it sets the bar low, but it doesn't automatically follow that all part-time work would be genuine and effective. Particularly in the context of the UK, I believe there are many EU nationals entering the UK to claim benefits and do work that is not genuine and effective.

Depends in the facts of the case and the kind of work It is and the conditions. In most scenarios it will be doable! Kempf succeeded in getting workers status

Many of those who can't even get a few hours work try to claim "self employment " (rules are a bit stricter) some even set up sole trader business where they are baby sitters, I **** you not. Unreal, chancers.

colosus1908

absolutely positive. Lot of exotic men and women with funny accents!! sweet...love em!!