Immigration/asylum for UK profit

[japancool]

Everyone, this topic was created to come up with some ideas on how we can 'profit' (or reduce the cost) of the immigration issues created, in part, by Brexit and poorly handled by Governments. It is not meant to a general immigration post.

We already profit from immigration. The current fertility rate in England and Wales is 1.41, WAY below replacement rate. Without immigration, the population and the economy would be shrinking and dropping like a stone.

So why is legal immigration a cost?

 

[japancool]

shut until a valid and workable system

There are five legitimate reasons people can get a long term visa.

1. They're coming here to get a job, and have one lined up which meets a certain salary threshold, or they're coming to start a business and have investment funds.
2. They got married to a British person.
3. They have a British parent or grandparent.
4. They're a student, paying tens of thousands of pounds a year out of their own pocket.
5. They're joining a family member already in the UK.

Now, you might argue some students are bogus. Those at proper universities, not some dodgy "college", are genuinely here to enter higher education, and have to prove funding, obtain the grades or are postgraduates.

The fifth one, if the migrant is in a job where he can support them and pay their NHS surcharge, why shouldn't say, a doctor or researcher be able to bring their manager over with them? If they're on a 5 year NHS contract, they might not want to be separated from their family for that long. British nurses and medical staff are already heading to Australia where they can get paid better, and take their families with them.

Which ones of those reasons are unworkable, or uncontrolled?

1353 people across the whole of the UK is nothing. How many people left the UK in the same time period?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

But we are not over-run. What makes you think we are?

See my post above..

Before you play the diversionary total numbers game - as Japan Cool is attempting to do by quoting fertility rates - my use of the term 'over-run in the context of the Harrods Sale relates to numbers of people arriving at the same time.

This and my previous posts draw from the OP's mention of smugglers and boats. There can be no denying the fact that our Coast Guard, Police, Hauliers and countless others are being overstretched.

 

[japancool]

as Japan Cool is attempting to do by quoting fertility rates

Oh? Why is it a diversion to bring some actual statistics (you know, facts) to the table? Because it counters your unsourced argument?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Which ones of those reasons are unworkable, or uncontrolled?

So these are the folk who are paying smugglers thousands of pounds to board an inflatable boat?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

1353 people across the whole of the UK is nothing. How many people left the UK in the same time period?

Your doing it again.

1353 people arriving at the White Cliffs of Dover don't dissipate into UK society overnight.

I see no evidence that 1353 people left the UK via inflatable boat and arrived on the shores of France illegally?

 

[japancool]

So these are the folk who are paying smugglers thousands of pounds to board an inflatable boat?

Nope. You said:

I have no problem with legal migration that is regulated and managed.

So what's unregulated and unmanaged about that? Unless you are happy that legal migration is already legal and managed, and you don't think there's anything about it that needs to change. Because that's what Reform and others are advocating. They don't separate legal and irregular migration.

 

[japancool]

Your doing it again.

1353 people arriving at the White Cliffs of Dover don't dissipate into UK society overnight.

I see no evidence that 1353 people left the UK via inflatable boat and arrived on the shores of France illegally?

And what does the fertility rate figure have to do with that? I gave that figure in response to Paul's question about how we profit from immigration - not "irregular immigration", he just said "immigration".

1353 people are dispersed to various places across the UK, if they apply and are housed by the government. Those that do not, just disappear into different places where they have contacts. They don't all stay put in Dover.

And yes, people from Britain *do* migrate irregularly too. I see regular articles are British people overstaying their tourist visas in places like Thailand, Bali or Australia, or working there illegally.

 

[japancool]

If you just talk about "immigration", you're talking about ALL immigrants, not just the irregular ones. If you're using that as lazy shorthand for irregular migrants, than that's extremely dangerous, because once someone gets tagged as an immigrant, the assumption is that they're here illegally. The majority of "immigrants" are completely legal.

And before Newchodge throws a wobbly, I know that a person who has claimed asylum is here legally too, while their application is pending. That's why I say "irregular", not "illegal".

 

[japancool]

By the way - with a fertility rate of 1.41, and the current average life expectancy of 81.23 years, the population will halve within 60 years, and a much higher proportion of the population will be elderly and require medical and supportive care before then.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

1353 people are dispersed to various places across the UK, if they apply and are housed by the government. Those that do not, just disappear into different places where they have contacts. They don't all stay put in Dover.

I can process and turnaround about 20 orders a week. If I get late orders there's a limit to the amount of juggling I can do to satisfy all parties so I 'shut the door', stop taking orders. What I don't do is kid myself that I can cope with the uplift.

Your suggestion that 1353 arrivals, and bear in mind that was over just 2 days, are quickly dispersed across the UK and it's business as usual is warped.

Brits overstaying VISA's in Thailand is no comparison to the arrival of thousands of migrants being housed in council accommodation and former military bases here in the UK.

 

[japancool]

Your suggestion that 1353 arrivals, and bear in mind that was over just 2 days, are quickly dispersed across the UK and it's business as usual is warped.

I didn''t say they disperse *quickly*. They do disperse. It's not a schoolful of people being dumped in one place.

Brits overstaying VISA's in Thailand is no comparison to the arrival of thousands of migrants being housed in council accommodation and former military bases here in the UK.

But they still do it. It's not just foreigners doing it here. And they don't want your pedophiles any more than you do, that's why they sent Gary Glitter back.

 

[DontAsk]

Your doing it again.

1353 people arriving at the White Cliffs of Dover don't dissipate into UK society overnight.

I suspect there would be at least 1535 people at an average Premier League match who I would rather see leave the country.

 

[scstock]

As a lefty Guardian-reading sort I had a lightbulb moment recently regarding why some people feel so aggrieved about asylum seekers being put up in hotels.

It doesn't matter to them if you point out that they are not living in luxury accommodation – for them the point is that it is being provided free of charge. If you've got your landlord coming around putting up the rent £125 a month because "market rate, innit" and you're already struggling to keep your head above water I can understand that you want to lash out at somebody.

I wonder if a system similar to student loans could take the sting out of this. An Asylum Loans Company could be set up, similar to the student loans company – and accommodation and food could be billed to an asylum seeker's account until they are accepted and can start working. At this point – just as with students – a 9% charge could be deducted from income above a certain threshold until their loan is cleared.

This would mean that the cost of housing asylum seekers would be financed by the migrants themselves, although as with higher education not at the point of delivery. If we do it to our own kids, why not to asylum seekers?

 

[Newchodge]

As a lefty Guardian-reading sort I had a lightbulb moment recently regarding why some people feel so aggrieved about asylum seekers being put up in hotels.

It doesn't matter to them if you point out that they are not living in luxury accommodation – for them the point is that it is being provided free of charge. If you've got your landlord coming around putting up the rent £125 a month because "market rate, innit" and you're already struggling to keep your head above water I can understand that you want to lash out at somebody.

I wonder if a system similar to student loans could take the sting out of this. An Asylum Loans Company could be set up, similar to the student loans company – and accommodation and food could be billed to an asylum seeker's account until they are accepted and can start working. At this point – just as with students – a 9% charge could be deducted from income above a certain threshold until their loan is cleared.

This would mean that the cost of housing asylum seekers would be financed by the migrants themselves, although as with higher education not at the point of delivery. If we do it to our own kids, why not to asylum seekers?

Because the cost is far greater than it would be if the individuals paid for themselves out of money they were allowed to earn. They are only housed and fed because the government refuses to allow them to work.

 

[japancool]

Judging by government contracts in the past, I suspect the government is being overcharged by the hotel companies and their intermediaries for those rooms as well. When COVID isolations hotels were in force, they charged £175 per night to stay in a Travelodge in south London. That's far more than they would have got in a period when demand was non-existent.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

So why is legal immigration a cost?

It isn't - it's a revenue generator!

 

[scstock]

Because the cost is far greater than it would be if the individuals paid for themselves out of money they were allowed to earn. They are only housed and fed because the government refuses to allow them to work.

I can't seeing that ever changing because of the "coming over here, taking our jobs" narrative.

 

[NickGrogan]

As a lefty Guardian-reading sort I had a lightbulb moment recently regarding why some people feel so aggrieved about asylum seekers being put up in hotels.

It doesn't matter to them if you point out that they are not living in luxury accommodation – for them the point is that it is being provided free of charge. If you've got your landlord coming around putting up the rent £125 a month because "market rate, innit" and you're already struggling to keep your head above water I can understand that you want to lash out at somebody.

I wonder if a system similar to student loans could take the sting out of this. An Asylum Loans Company could be set up, similar to the student loans company – and accommodation and food could be billed to an asylum seeker's account until they are accepted and can start working. At this point – just as with students – a 9% charge could be deducted from income above a certain threshold until their loan is cleared.

This would mean that the cost of housing asylum seekers would be financed by the migrants themselves, although as with higher education not at the point of delivery. If we do it to our own kids, why not to asylum seekers?

The vast majority of student loan debt will likely never be repaid, so it's probably not a great model to follow.

@Newchodge If they were allowed to work, what jobs would they do? Unemployment among young men is already very high, and given that most will not have particularly good qualifications, that is unlikely to improve the situation.

Stopping the boats is trivially easy, but there is no will among MPs to actually to do it.

The problem is going to get exponentially worse over the next generation, and we'll be looking back at the good old days when only 1353 people arrived in a weekend, unless action is taken, and no European government is showing any interest in taking that action.

 

[scstock]

The vast majority of student loan debt will likely never be repaid, so it's probably not a great model to follow.

The current forecast for student loan repayment is 56% so that is actually a small majority that will be paid in full.

The thresholds could be different to student loans - perhaps even on all income, to achieve a higher percentage. But my idea is that it would remove the principle that the board & lodging was free, and thereby take some of the sting out.

 

[NickGrogan]

Governments can forecast anything, but the actual figures tell a slightly different story.

• 62.9% of all higher education borrowers who are liable to repay are in the UK tax system and 39.5% made a repayment in financial year 2024-25
• 59.3% of all further education borrowers who are liable to repay are in the UK tax system and 20.4% made a repayment in financial year 2024-25

If 40% aren't even in the UK tax system, how are they going to repay in full?

If 60% of those in the tax system didn't make a payment, how are they going to repay in full?

Projections are great, but they're wrong.

 

[Nathanto]

Stopping the boats is trivially easy, but there is no will among MPs to actually to do it.

Most things are trivially easy if you don't care about the law or any consequences of your actions; what trivially easy solution did you have in mind for stopping the boats?

Perhaps a Trump-like solution of using an Apache or Drone to destroy any boat crossing the Channel that you don't like the look of?

 

[NickGrogan]

You may not know this, but Governments are the ones that make the laws, so any law they don't like, they can and do change.

You mention not caring about the consequences of your actions - what is the consequence on a country when a large number of young, fit and healthy men, the main potential workforce of that country, up and leave? Is it good for that country? Does it grow and improve? If you find thinking at the country scale challenging, consider starting with a village or a family first.

Simple solution - people take the safest route that they think is most likely to be successful for them, at present that route for some people is over the Channel. For others, it is overstaying on holiday, work, or student visas.

So to stop people crossing the channel on small boats, that needs to change, give them a better route, and they'll take it.

Run a regular ferry, tickets are £2000ish and include an initial assessment of your claim in that cost. You get on the ferry, your case is assessed, you pass, and you get fast-tracked into processing. You could make it free or perhaps include X for free and let others pay if they want to come faster.

You fail, you don't get off the ferry; you are photographed, fingerprinted, and returned to France, where the French can do as they please. You will not be given another chance to apply; you are banned.

Anyone coming by a small boat is paying more to take a more dangerous route. This means that they know they will fail the assessment, and entering the country illegally is a crime, resulting in automatic deportation.

The small boats stop pretty quickly.

So which laws has this broken? What are the consequences of these actions?

Less money for people smugglers?
Fewer drownings?
Drop in small boat sales?
Less money for French politicians to do nothing?