CBI against Tories Immigration Policy
Discussion
TBH they're right. The tories' immigration policy is one of their policies I don't completely agree with. I think, rather than numerically limiting immigration, we should take it on a case-by-case basis. The tories are essentially proposing a 'one in one out' system, which will harm businesses as all the immigrants who come to this country to work in the businesses the CBI protects will find themselves in limited supply. As a result, they will be in greater demand, wages will go up and productivity will go down.
The Tories policy would set an annual limit to immigration, including asylum seekers and economic migrants. It would not be a one in one out system but at a lower level than now. The bulk of the reduction would be in asylum seekers not job seekers so I fail to see how it will have a dramatic impact on the economy-particularly as low cost labour will still be available from the new EU members of eastern Europe.
The CBI has criticized a number of government policies, so perhaps they are trying to appear balanced by attacking the Conservatives on this.
In economic terms it is a bit of a non-issue.
Oh and always be careful about the cost benefit analysis of immigrants. Immigrants include American & other nationalities who work in the city (who no Tory policy would prevent coming into the country) take out these immigrants and the economic case is far less clear.
The CBI has criticized a number of government policies, so perhaps they are trying to appear balanced by attacking the Conservatives on this.
In economic terms it is a bit of a non-issue.
Oh and always be careful about the cost benefit analysis of immigrants. Immigrants include American & other nationalities who work in the city (who no Tory policy would prevent coming into the country) take out these immigrants and the economic case is far less clear.
I have grave reservations about the "anti-immigrant" stance of the Conservatives and UKIP (not to mention the BNP). They are all seem to be basing their policies on numbers only. Is there not a case for grading countries rather than just a blanket number limit?
For a start, any blanket ban on people from EU countries is illegal - not to mention the repurcussions it might have for British people who go to live in other EU countries, a couple of hundred thousand at the last count. Other countries outside the EU might be graded under a "favoured nation" status - as the US does.
Indeed, the only fair method is a review of each case on an individual basis.
As for asylum, there cannot be any limits on humanitarian matters such as this.
How would a ban stop illegals anyway. They are prepared to flout the law, no matter what the law says.
For a start, any blanket ban on people from EU countries is illegal - not to mention the repurcussions it might have for British people who go to live in other EU countries, a couple of hundred thousand at the last count. Other countries outside the EU might be graded under a "favoured nation" status - as the US does.
Indeed, the only fair method is a review of each case on an individual basis.
As for asylum, there cannot be any limits on humanitarian matters such as this.
How would a ban stop illegals anyway. They are prepared to flout the law, no matter what the law says.
Eric Mc said:
As for asylum, there cannot be any limits on humanitarian matters such as this.
How would a ban stop illegals anyway. They are prepared to flout the law, no matter what the law says.
I believe the plan is to deport them/hold them in a secure location while their case is being considered-it is a system that works very well in Australia.
and of course there has to be limits-the limit at present is how many can smuggle themselves into the country-we cannot take all of the worlds poor and dispossessed.
Illegal IMMIGRANTS will still try their luck whatever the rules say. After all, they will ignore any regulations whatever they are.
One of the real problems is legal immigrants on temporary visas who stay beyond their permitted period but just disappear. How would that be controlled?
Asylum seekers are a different proposition. In theory they are seeking refuge from persecution in their home country. If they are to be vetted before they enter the UK, in what geographical location should this vetting take place? The Channel Islands (not part of the UK)? Isle of Man? Some willing foreign country?
None of the parties who propose this sytem have have given any details of where vetting should be carried out.
One of the real problems is legal immigrants on temporary visas who stay beyond their permitted period but just disappear. How would that be controlled?
Asylum seekers are a different proposition. In theory they are seeking refuge from persecution in their home country. If they are to be vetted before they enter the UK, in what geographical location should this vetting take place? The Channel Islands (not part of the UK)? Isle of Man? Some willing foreign country?
None of the parties who propose this sytem have have given any details of where vetting should be carried out.
The CBI are politically motiveted (to the left) so it's no wonder that they appear to have chosen to "misinterpret" what Howard is saying.
All Howard is saying is that we should be able to choose who enters our country, rather than at present only seeming to allow in the least desirable who do a disappearing act as soon as they are let in "temporarily".
Other countries employ the right to choose who enters their country and they are prospering far better than we are.
Letting in the wrong people is not good for our country, we are paying for it.
All Howard is saying is that we should be able to choose who enters our country, rather than at present only seeming to allow in the least desirable who do a disappearing act as soon as they are let in "temporarily".
Other countries employ the right to choose who enters their country and they are prospering far better than we are.
Letting in the wrong people is not good for our country, we are paying for it.
Twincam16 said:
TBH they're right. The tories' immigration policy is one of their policies I don't completely agree with. I think, rather than numerically limiting immigration, we should take it on a case-by-case basis. The tories are essentially proposing a 'one in one out' system, which will harm businesses as all the immigrants who come to this country to work in the businesses the CBI protects will find themselves in limited supply. As a result, they will be in greater demand, wages will go up and productivity will go down.
or with all the civil servants they intend to sack there will be plenty of jobs to go around for the people who already live here.
and if they took the step of bringing benefits under control maybe people will actually get some of our home grown drop outs will start to get these low paid jobs. The words - "you're a scrounger - working at MacDonalds is not beneath you" could be strategically employed.
tinman0 said:
and if they took the step of bringing benefits under control maybe people will actually get some of our home grown drop outs will start to get these low paid jobs. The words - "you're a scrounger - working at MacDonalds is not beneath you" could be strategically employed.
Or perhaps MacDonalds could pay a reasonable wage.
Nobody is addressing the point I made. How can you tell in advance if someone is going to be good immigrant or a bad one.
Given that some must be "good", would putting a blanket numerical limit on numbers entering actually make sure we block good immigrants from entering the company.
And what about EU citizens? Would you propose stopping them coming at will - as they can at present?
Given that some must be "good", would putting a blanket numerical limit on numbers entering actually make sure we block good immigrants from entering the company.
And what about EU citizens? Would you propose stopping them coming at will - as they can at present?
Eric Mc said:
Nobody is addressing the point I made. How can you tell in advance if someone is going to be good immigrant or a bad one.
Given that some must be "good", would putting a blanket numerical limit on numbers entering actually make sure we block good immigrants from entering the company.
And what about EU citizens? Would you propose stopping them coming at will - as they can at present?
Have a look at Australia's method of assessing "good" and "bad" immigrants. You will find all the information on the internet.
For me, immigration and asylum are two seperate issues.
As far as immigration goes, we should have a proper 'entrance' exam in place to see wether they are folks we might want or not, much like if you want to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand. With this in place, the numbers would look after themselves (obviously this would not apply to EU Nationals).
As for asylum, no limits, we should take the lot, all of them, every last one of them. BUT, once it has been established that you are bogus, out you go, immediately. If you are genuine, here's your NA number and an appointment at the job centre.
The problem at the moment is too many immigrants who are no damn use to us, and bogus asylum seekers who having failed, are still here.
If all the illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers were sent back, again, no need for any limits, the numbers would look after themselves.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Sunday 24th April 17:03
As far as immigration goes, we should have a proper 'entrance' exam in place to see wether they are folks we might want or not, much like if you want to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand. With this in place, the numbers would look after themselves (obviously this would not apply to EU Nationals).
As for asylum, no limits, we should take the lot, all of them, every last one of them. BUT, once it has been established that you are bogus, out you go, immediately. If you are genuine, here's your NA number and an appointment at the job centre.
The problem at the moment is too many immigrants who are no damn use to us, and bogus asylum seekers who having failed, are still here.
If all the illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers were sent back, again, no need for any limits, the numbers would look after themselves.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Sunday 24th April 17:03
Australia is in an envious position. It takes a real effort to get there, being stuck on the other side of the world. Britain is in claustrophobic little Europe which has always had a history of migratory populations. It would be very difficult to implement Australia's "quarantine" style vetting process here.
Eric Mc said:
Australia is in an envious position. It takes a real effort to get there, being stuck on the other side of the world. Britain is in claustrophobic little Europe which has always had a history of migratory populations. It would be very difficult to implement Australia's "quarantine" style vetting process here.
Australia has a hell of allot of space-if they still think it is worthwhile restricting immigrant numbers and running a rational system-perhaps we could consider it too.
Balmoral Green said:
For me, immigration and asylum are two seperate issues.
As far as immigration goes, we should have a proper 'entrance' exam in place to see wether they are folks we might want or not, much like if you want to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand. With this in place, the numbers would look after themselves (obviously this would not apply to EU Nationals).
As for asylum, no limits, we should take the lot, all of them, every last one of them. BUT, once it has been established that you are bogus, out you go, immediately. If you are genuine, here's your NA number and an appointment at the job centre.
The problem at the moment is too many immigrants who are no damn use to us, and bogus asylum seekers who having failed, are still here.
If all the illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers were sent back, again, no need for any limits, the numbers would look after themselves.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Sunday 24th April 17:03
Everything he said c c said:
and if they took the step of bringing benefits under control maybe people will actually get some of our home grown drop outs will start to get these low paid jobs. The words - "you're a scrounger - working at MacDonalds is not beneath you" could be strategically employed.
Or perhaps MacDonalds could pay a reasonable wage.
why?
why do there have to be strings? get a job - if the job doesn't pay enough, get a better job or maybe live within your means.
Balmoral Green said:
As for asylum, no limits, we should take the lot, all of them, every last one of them. BUT, once it has been established that you are bogus, out you go, immediately. If you are genuine, here's your NA number and an appointment at the job centre.
Asylum seekers are never going to go down to the job centre, the majority of them do not speak English and are not qualified brain surgeons. As you are so quick to allow "the lot" to come here, where does your knowledge of this subject come from, how many have you met or are housed near you? None I bet.
We are part of Europe which is a big place and getting bigger each time some more join, so why is it the percentage the UK take disproportionate to the rest of Europe? Why did a country the size of France take less than half as many as the UK in 2002 for instance?
Answer - because they have people controlling immigration, clearly we don't.
tinman0 said:
tinman0 said:
and if they took the step of bringing benefits under control maybe people will actually get some of our home grown drop outs will start to get these low paid jobs. The words - "you're a scrounger - working at MacDonalds is not beneath you" could be strategically employed.
Or perhaps MacDonalds could pay a reasonable wage.
why?
why do there have to be strings? get a job - if the job doesn't pay enough, get a better job or maybe live within your means.
IIRC Macdonalds were "slated" not so long ago for paying their staff £1/hr when things were: "quiet". The minimum wage stopped this......(and they are still in business). Are you really suggesting that we sink that low?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff