Bye bye Starmer

[ZedLeg]

This is a thing that happens quite often, people assume because you’re saying x minorities aren’t all deviant criminals you must be saying they’re all perfect.

No one is saying that.

I’m not going to speak for everyone but what I’m saying is we should treat everyone coming here with a basic level of respect and dignity and we’re failing.

[Nefarious]

And if you're asking for my personal opinion of merit Vs caps on migration at a national level - voluntary migration (student, workers visa etc), which makes up the vast vast majority of overall migration should be decided by government based on cost/benefits to the country and quotas set. Involuntary migration (i.e. refugees from war) cannot be capped. If my neighbour's house burned down (especially when the fire was caused by stuff I sold him), his family are welcome to crash on my living room floor. All his family, not just his wife and the one child who looks most of Ike me.

[dinny_g]

Involuntary migration (i.e. refugees from war) cannot be capped.

and this is where we disagree...

We should take as many as we can - which isn't the same

[DeskJockey]

The asylum space has been infiltrated with criminality, just not the violent kind that Dave is talking about. Uber Eats riders, corner shop workers, cleaners, labourers, prostitutes, car wash attendants. Many of these workers are doing this work under the supervision of organised groups for cash while actively delaying their asylum claims. My lodger is a migrant and knows this labour market well, he has friends who work in it.

I do think the way that all asylum seekers are treated as having de facto noble intent to seek a better life can be a little misplaced. While it is true that they are often running away from atrocities or persecution which is a valid claim for asylum, that doesn't automatically equate to respect for a destination country. When we did our Ukraine trip, my Russian gf was helping with translation at Przemyśl refugee camp. When Ukrainian refugees crossed into Poland they'd get taken to the camp to be routed to a destination country in Europe to live. Because so many EU countries had opened their borders to Ukrainian refugees, they had a choice, and their default first question was, without fail, "which country has the best benefits" - they were usually more interested in what they can take, rather than integration.

What question would you expect them to ask? They've just fled war with little or no possessions, little or no access to any resources (financial or otherwise), very limited knowledge about the countries they can choose to go too, and probably a language barrier on top.

It seems a very sensible and logical question to ask in trying to ensure some kind of near-term future. What the EU/we could have done is set a standard across the recieving countries so that there was no difference in that regard.

I would expect questions about where there are notable Ukrainian-speaking communities, potential opportunities, education, working requirements etc.

I'm not challenging their migratory status, our responsibility to help and their right to claim asylum etc, I believe in all those things. This is simply a response to the idea that asylum seekers somehow have a halo around them. I'm just saying that through my work there and also locally at food banks, people who are seeking asylum or NRPF etc, their ambitions are a very mixed bag, some are amazing, but not all intentions are noble.

Those are good questions, but I would argue are asked when you have the surplus resources (energy, time, etc.) to think that far ahead. I've never been in their position, but I would imagine that the key questions are how to get a roof over my head, food to eat, access to some kind of money, connectivity back home.

[Nefarious]

But military, trade and financial arrangements are never unilateral - it is the rule, rather than the exception, that some support or participate and others do not. This would be no different and to pretend otherwise is just wasting valuable time in coming up with a sustainable long term solution. At least in my opinion

That is to pretend that all international issues are dealt with in isolation. They are not. Things are dealt with holistically. Horse trading happens. Tariffs of traded goods are traded against military security guarantees. Financial services regulations are traded for cooperation on decarbonisation. Etc etc.

The idea that international migration is just too difficult a topic and no collectively beneficial arrangements could ever be reached, and therefore the only solution is to barricade the doors as tightly as possible to the innocent victims of international power wrangling, is almost willfully pessimistic.

[Nefarious]

Involuntary migration (i.e. refugees from war) cannot be capped.

and this is where we disagree...

We should take as many as we can - which isn't the same

I fear I am not going to like the answer, but define "can".

Do you mean as many as we can physically fit on the square footage of the UK?
Or do you mean as many as the UK can accommodate with zero material impact on anyone's lives?

[dinny_g]

The idea that international migration is just too difficult a topic and no collectively beneficial arrangements could ever be reached, and therefore the only solution is to barricade the doors as tightly as possible to the innocent victims of international power wrangling, is almost willfully pessimistic.

Sorry, have to call you on on this - I did not, nor have ever, nor would ever, advocated for "barricading the doors as tightly as possible". That an unnecessary stretch

[Nefarious]

The idea that international migration is just too difficult a topic and no collectively beneficial arrangements could ever be reached, and therefore the only solution is to barricade the doors as tightly as possible to the innocent victims of international power wrangling, is almost willfully pessimistic.

Sorry, have to call you on on this - I did not, nor have ever, nor would ever, advocated for "barricading the doors as tightly as possible". That an unnecessary stretch

My apologies if I have misunderstood. What do you mean by a cap then? What happens to those in excess of the cap?

[dinny_g]

Involuntary migration (i.e. refugees from war) cannot be capped.

and this is where we disagree...

We should take as many as we can - which isn't the same

I fear I am not going to like the answer, but define "can".

Do you mean as many as we can physically fit on the square footage of the UK?
Or do you mean as many as the UK can accommodate with zero material impact on anyone's lives?

More the latter but perhaps not Zero impact but an quantified and understood acceptable impact. We need to maintain a reasonable quality of life for everyone, including those who've come here and been granted asylum.

At the moment, I do not believe we have this - will then be sufficient hospital beds and dentists and suicide councillors (who can specialise in war trauma) and electricity generation and transmission and housing units and and and...

I've never seen a plan as it seems to be "Lets worry about that later" - that concerns me

[ZedLeg]

There’s no plan because as soon as a party talks about spending more on the NHS they start getting hammered with the “magic money tree” patter.

[Alex88]

They aren't all fleeing war and bombs. Some of the top countries of origin are Bangladesh and Pakistan, which are not active war zones or experiencing collapsing governments.

And..

They obviously aren't all rapists and criminals. Furthermore, we simply don't hold data that registers crime by asylum or immigration status. Whether that's a good or bad thing is also up for debate, but we don't really know if they're more likely to commit crime or not because the system doesn't work that way.

But I'm a little tired of seeing simple answers to complex issues. Having a sensible immigration system in just common sense, and while those seeking refuge is inevitable in an unstable world, we should still ensure we are being prudent with who we allow in. I don't think that's controversial.

While many or most are genuinely seeking asylum, some are just economic migrants. There's also suspicious back stories, dodgy immigration lawyers, difficulty removing foreign criminals, those who just don't leave when their application is unsuccessful, etc. This detracts from those who are genuine and casts a bad light over the whole thing.

And for those who are genuine, with whom I greatly sympathise, they're dumped into communities with a load of people with whom they're unfamiliar. They're then competing for the same limited resources as the poorer British people, which obviously creates resentment.

Allowing them to work immediately (as the Greens suggest) while they wait for their, usually successful, asylum application, would mean the system would be loaded with economic migrants claiming they're fleeing war and persecution from countries not even deemed unsafe.

I dont think either side has given an accurate representation of the asylum/immigration story tbh, and I think it's a highly complex issue that's going to be a pain for any government.

[ZedLeg]

What exactly is wrong with someone coming here to work and send the money home?

They’re paying tax at least.

[Alex88]

Because, isn't that what the normal, legal route is intended for?

[dinny_g]

What exactly is wrong with someone coming here to work and send the money home?

They’re paying tax at least.

Nothing if you are entitled to come here and work...

I'd love to go to New Zealand and work there but I am not entitled to - I would fail there Rule Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) rule. The employer must prove they could not find a local worker for the role."

So I'm not entitled to go there, even though I would pay my taxes...

[ZedLeg]

Because, isn't that what the normal, legal route is intended for?

Labour established an (imo) unreasonable minimum salary rule (£35k iirc).

I know of two people who were here working and had to leave the country because they couldn’t find work that paid well enough.

[ZedLeg]

What exactly is wrong with someone coming here to work and send the money home?

They’re paying tax at least.

Nothing if you are entitled to come here and work...

I'd love to go to New Zealand and work there but I am not entitled to - I would fail there Rule Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) rule. The employer must prove they could not find a local worker for the role."

So I'm not entitled to go there, even though I would pay my taxes...

My point is that if someone wants to come here and spend a couple of years doing mcjobs because the pay is better than anything they’d get at home, I don’t really see that as a bad thing. Likewise if you wanted to go to New Zealand and work it should be easy to do that.

Obviously opinions vary.

[Alex88]

That's obviously sad, but if the system is going to work then surely we have to be realistic rather than ideological.

I get the premise of your argument, but having no minimum earnings threshold is madness. We then just become a magnet for low skilled migrants who will take out far more than they pay in. Who covers that cost?

And, it would hurt the poorest in society the most. Surely the progressive position should be to protect them and help increase their pay and conditions, not flood the zone with even more people willing to work for minimum wage and tolerate shitty conditions.

[ZedLeg]

A working single guy in his twenties who was never educated here is almost certainly not taking more out of the system than they’re putting in.

And it’s costing us a shitload more to have them sitting around in hotels twiddling their thumbs.

I can also argue that min wage should be £15 ph and the personal allowance should be at least £18k though?

[nuttinnew]

[Nefarious]

and this is where we disagree...

We should take as many as we can - which isn't the same

I fear I am not going to like the answer, but define "can".

Do you mean as many as we can physically fit on the square footage of the UK?
Or do you mean as many as the UK can accommodate with zero material impact on anyone's lives?

More the latter but perhaps not Zero impact but an quantified and understood acceptable impact. We need to maintain a reasonable quality of life for everyone, including those who've come here and been granted asylum.

At the moment, I do not believe we have this - will then be sufficient hospital beds and dentists and suicide councillors (who can specialise in war trauma) and electricity generation and transmission and housing units and and and...

I've never seen a plan as it seems to be "Lets worry about that later" - that concerns me

Ok. I think we seem to be agreeing on this.

In my neighbour's house fire example, you wouldn't say they couldn't sleep on your living room floor because there wasn't enough food in the cupboard or enough poo roll in the downstairs cloakroom - you'd pop to the shops!

My fundamental position is the system is unfit for purpose, and it is the failures of the system (often baked in by design to appease those who want so a "hard line", but also for reasons of right purse strings) that create these societal tensions, rather than the principle of immigration per se, or any innate evil in the people themselves.

We, as a nation, deemed it acceptable to blow £150-200bn so some geriatric racists could feel a bit whiter and some rich investment banks could get even richer off deregulation. Surely, a couple of percent of that could have been spent instead on a working asylum system *and* the support networks to make that work.