Immigration and Asylum UK - The debate.

[Yorkshireman]

After reading many of the recent threads I think this topic rears its head up fairly frequently so I thought why not make it a full debate. I refer to the UK in my arguement as I'm not qualified to comment on other nations but feel free to expand upon this with experiences from any other countries.

Total immigration from outside the EU has more than trebled in the past 5 years and is still rising. Each year nearly a 1/4 million people come to live in Great Britain. That is the equivalent of a city the size of Cambridge every 6 months. Arrivals on this scale makes successful assimilation very difficult. Furthermore 3/4 of all migrants travel to London and the South East. This pattern exacerbates the already heavy pressure on transport, housing, education and health services.

Some key facts:

* The UK's population is projected to rise by 7.2 million from 2004-2031 - 83% of this rise is due to immigration. Thats 6 cities the size of Birmingham of this period. (Govt pop projections)

* 59,000 new homes will be required in England alone each year for the next 17 years for immigrants. (Hansard report 2004)

* Every year about 12 million non-EU nationals arrive in the UK. How many leave ? Nobody knows we have no embarkation controls.

* In inner London 57% of all births are to foriegn born mothers.(ONS birth stats)

* 70% of net migration is to London.

* The cost of running the Immigration and Nationality Dept. rose from £300m a year in 1999 to £1.9 billion in 2004. (Home Office report)

* Legal aid for asylum claimants £170 million per year.

* England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, 4 times that of france and 12 times that of the USA.

* Since 1997 about 376,000 asylum seekers have been refused permission to stay here but only 85,000 have been recorded as having been removed from the UK.(Home Office asylum stats)

* Those families whose claims have failed continue to recieve benefits worth an average of £15,000 a year tax free.(Home Office press release)

* Migrants now comprise about 29% of Londons population.

Some questions we need to ask are:

Do migrants add or detract from our economic growth ?

Can we do without skilled workers from overseas ?

Do we still need migrants to do the jobs that Brits don't want ?

This is an arguement that I think concerns all British citizens regardless of colour or creed. It is not discussed openly enough for fear of the racist brand. Feel free to air your views.

NB. Please, no posts about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis we're talking about current affairs in the UK and not 1930's Germany.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, first, I'm not sure immigration really helps UK economy, unless there are evidences. But in Singapore the goverment said it is and brought out the evidences, although I can't see the actual things...

Second, yes, you can, but it is unlogic, as most companies would like to hire cheaper labours. If the price of local working force is too high, why not use foreigners if the price is lower?

Third, yes, but I don't think most people want to do it... that's the problem. Besides that, the price is another problem too.

Last, I must say although I'm not UK citizen and I never being UK before, but as this is a big problem in Singapore, so I just give some view points of mine.

[Freddie]

Well, first, I'm not sure immigration really helps UK economy, unless there are evidences. But in Singapore the goverment said it is and brought out the evidences, although I can't see the actual things...

Second, yes, you can, but it is unlogic, as most companies would like to hire cheaper labours. If the price of local working force is too high, why not use foreigners if the price is lower?

Third, yes, but I don't think most people want to do it... that's the problem. Besides that, the price is another problem too.

Last, I must say although I'm not UK citizen and I never being UK before, but as this is a big problem in Singapore, so I just give some view points of mine.

I'm a conservative through and through but even I can see how migrants are adding our economy. Mostly they do all the jobs that most native Britians don't want to do i.e. cleaning offices, Kitchen porters, food prep basicly any menial tasks. Without them we wouldn't be able to run our economy. Also migration at thte moment is very important because we have an aging population with lots of people the baby boomers born in the early fifties are about to hit retirment age in the next 10 years and there aren't enough young people who are working to support them.

However I do believe in controlled migration. We shouldn't let people in to our contry without any checks being madem ths is both for our economy and given the current security climate for our protecitons as well.

[imb39]

Surprisingly enough, I think Freddie has hit the nail on the head.

[Denny Crane!]

Do migrants add or detract from our economic growth ?

Regardless, it is a moot point. I say this because as a country of this size we simply cannot cope with an ever expanding population. The transport infrastructure cannot sustain the commuters already, imagine the problem with another 10 million in the country. The NHS should be able to cope but we all know it will not hold up. Similarly funding in education is being soaked up by provisions for foreign speaking students and sheer inefficiency of labour and targeted investment.

Can we do without skilled workers from oversea

At present no we could not. We have a love affair with media studies and the like, we do not produce enough doctors, scientists and engineers. We need to change our attitude stop dumbing down (IE. Remove target driven evaluation) and remove the lazy anti intellectualism that has England in its claws.

Do we still need migrants to do the jobs that Brits don't want ?

Yes and no. We have a over burdened welfare state, until that is sorted yes we do. However there are a million unemployed and even more that labour have siphoned off into different categories of incapacity etc. that are capable of working and would need employment. Wether or not they would be willing to take these jobs is debatable but if there was not a free living coming in off the gov it might be possible.

I am a young man, potentially quite well off in my current job yet I cannot envisage buying a place at the current prices, we are overpopulated. France is twice the size with the same population, does that not tell anyone anything?

Peter

[Perikles]

There is no doubt that immigrants have contributed to our nations economy in the past but now I think thay are putting a strain on it. The huge influx of migrants is making a country full. The infrastructure will not last much longer and the migrants who are already here are not integrating. 68% of asylum seekers are unemployed, 42% of refugees are unemployed, compared with 8% of the indegenous population. I think that by stopping immigration for just a few years will help by:

• Getting more people who are able to work off benefits and in to work
• Taking the strain off housing and roads by letting the builders catch up
• Defusing the anger betwen different communities by letting the immigrants have time to integrate before more arrive.

There is no doubt that they have contributed to our nation in a great way but a few years of little immigration would in my opinion solve a lot of problems.

[Tom Paine]

So do I.... until part of that last paragraph. While we may want controlled immigration it has to be based on skill and need; if they need to come here, or if we need them no matter how unskilled, we need to accept them.

[Perikles]

So do I.... until part of that last paragraph. While we may want controlled immigration it has to be based on skill and need; if they need to come here, or if we need them no matter how unskilled, we need to accept them.

Yes, I nearly totally agree. Immigrants coming to this country should be let in if they are skilled (not a one-legged roofer) and need. But if people are coming in to this country because they are fleeing war or persecution they should still have to start work within a year, not just claim benefits.

[Tom Paine]

They should try to start work; we can't throw people who are seeking asylum back out again.

[Hans Kloss]

we can't throw people who are seeking asylum back out again

But I do wonder why so many of them travel thousand of miles, passing so many countries in which they could have stayed and yet they all head for UK.

[Freddie]

But I do wonder why so many of them travel thousand of miles, passing so many countries in which they could have stayed and yet they all head for UK.

A few reasons. Firstly getting citizenship or a working permit in Britain is a lot easier then it is compared to places like France (why do you think you see people scramble onto Lorries in Calais instead of claiming asylum in France). Secondly, English is a relatively easy language to learn and many countries teach it as a second language. Thirdly, Britain has had migrants coming from all over the world to work and live here since the end of WW2, hence it is likely that immigrants will have family already living in Britain.

There are plenty of other reasons but those are the macro causes. Germany is another country that has high number of immigration, in fact I believe they have more migrants then Britain (I reckon Britain being an Island has a lot to do with that).

Also we should be flattered that no matter what part of the world people come from most of them snub France for Britain!

So you think Wikipedia is wrong on population density?
You still beleive Britains population density is TWICE that of Germany and FOUR TIMES that of France?

Being an island it really doesn't surprise me. Add this that Britain is quite a lot smaller then France and a lot smaller then Germany.

I do agree with your assessment that the figures are unreliable. For example we have no accurate data in the UK as to how many people are living in this country. Many failed asylum seekers often stay here living with family or friends, and we don't know how many people are coming into this country un declared.

[Tom Paine]

Because the UK is rich and supposedly one of the best countries in the world maybe?

[imb39]

Actually, I think it is due to the Welfare State. We are probably more generaous than most, well, that's what I hear often.

[Tom Paine]

Actually, I think it is due to the Welfare State. We are probably more generaous than most, well, that's what I hear often.

Never seen/heard any proof of that, really. Much of Europe has a welfare state, and I don't think ours is any more generous.

[Perikles]

Never seen/heard any proof of that, really. Much of Europe has a welfare state, and I don't think ours is any more generous.

Last year on the TV (BBC I think) they interviewed some potential illegal immigrants in Calais and asked them why they were going to the UK instead of staying in France.
They all said because it was easier to claim benefits in Britain than in France and in Britain you don't have to work and you get a house. (Not in those exact words but something like that anyway)

This shows that immigrants see Britain as an easy touch where they can claim benefits from the state.

[Tom Paine]

The fact that they see it that way does not make it so. Perception is not reality.

[Perikles]

The fact that they see it that way does not make it so. Perception is not reality.

But I would agree with them when it comes to the UK's welfare State.
Too many people are on benefits in this country, people I know are claiming incapacity benefit through stress and are earning more than they did when they were working. I know this is not immigration related by I am trying to show you that the benefits system is seriously flawed.
Immigrants believe that they can come into the UK and have an easy life at the taxpayers expense, this is not a perception it is reality.

[Hans Kloss]

Last year on the TV (BBC I think) they interviewed some potential illegal immigrants in Calais and asked them why they were going to the UK instead of staying in France.
They all said because it was easier to claim benefits in Britain than in France and in Britain you don't have to work and you get a house. (Not in those exact words but something like that anyway)
This shows that immigrants see Britain as an easy touch where they can claim benefits from the state

I would not trust medias 100% but I have agree that Britain is see as "soft target".

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Anyone willing to work for his/her bread must be given the opportunity to do so without bias owing to his/her nationality. After all, isn't everyone supposed to be born equal?

A fine piece of writing, and one that has a lot of logic.

The UK's foreign born population pay 10 per cent more to the state than they get back in benefits and services - equivalent to £2.6 billion per year net. They push up the rate of economic growth and, fo example, ensure we are treated when we are ill - nearly30 per cent of UK doctors and 13 per cent of nurses are non-UK born; half the extra NHS staff employed over the past decade qualified aboroad.

Public anxiety, according to many, is unquestionably mostly about race. Few tend to object when, say, a Polish dentist or plumber provides his service to Britain. The largest group of immigrants who settle in GBR come from Asia (39%) and Africa (32%), and most of these (65,800 in 2003) are spouses or dependants of people already living in the UK.

A strong thirst for wealth once took the British all over the world. Ironically, now it's payback time.

From the Independant - Truth or Scare?

Migrationwatch says :
If immigration continues at the present rate, overall numbers over the next decade will rise by the equivalent of a city the size of Cambridge every six months (also what Yorkshireman says)

Critics say :
The recent census results demonstrte that the net migrtion has been and will be far lower and the Cambridge 'fact' is no longer true. Overall, numbers will probably increase only by the size of a medium sized town and would fit inside a football stadium.

Migrationwatch says :
The growth of Britain's population is out of control.

Critics say :
Population growth is slowing. The most up to date government figures show that the population grew by 17% over the past 50 years. This growth will be almost halved over the next half century to 8.5%

Migration watch says :
Britain is full up and possibly at its optimum population.

Critics say :
They refuse to define the optimum population. This is an argument about London, and the SE. Scotland's population has declined over the past twenty years and NE is depopulating too, with whole streets of abandoned houses.

Again from the Independant, how immigation boosts economy

Immigration is vital for the health of the economy, helpng to tackle job shortages, according to new academic research.

Academics from UCL examined migration treds since WW2 and compared hem to economic trend of different nations, including Britain. They dismissed the idea that there is a fixed number of jobs, and that an influx of foreign workers simply increases competition.

People born abroad make up only 8.3% of Britains population, a smaller proportion than France (10%), Netherlands (10.1%) or Germany (11.1%), but higher than others such as Spain and Denmark. The figure in the US is 12.3%.

Unknown facts about workers in Britain, by Jeremy Laurance

One third of the 212,000 doctor on the medical registers qualified overseas.

Of 20,000 nurses who joined in 2003/4, more than 15,000 were from overseas.

Home Office numbers show the annual number of work permits issued to staff from non-EU countries has risen 27-fold since 1993.

Commonwealth flux to the classroom, by Sarah Cassidy

During the teacher recruitment crisis in 2001, foreign teachers were credited with keeping British schools open.

The largest single souce of overseas teacers in RSA, although africa as a whole is short of five million teachers if universal primary education is to be achieved there by 2015.

Education ministers from 23 countries agreed th countries like Britain which receive high numbers of teachers from abroad must provide them with extra training to improve the education system of thei countries when they return home.

Lets remember we are talking about immigrants, those who have applied and gained access, not illegal immigrants who have entered without permission.

[Big War Bird]

Ah but preception is reality, if would be moochers think the UK is an easy mark then they will come, until they learn differently, just a thought.

My thought is that the UK and indeed every other country is probably getting wat it wants out of immigration, or at least what it deserves.

* In inner London 57% of all births are to foriegn born mothers.(ONS birth stats)

* 70% of net migration is to London.

Is that supposed to be bad or good?

* Legal aid for asylum claimants £170 million per year.

If you allow asylum seekers you gotta figure its gonna cost ya.