Well ok then. How do you think we should 'control immigration'? You see, I'm not a politician, and nor are you I assume, so I really don't think either of us are truly qualified to answer the question, else we'd be the ones people may or may not be voting for. Should we be allowing/disallowing people based on their monetary wealth? Based on their skills? Based on how good looking they are? This is one of the things I don't like. How do we choose who we say yes or no to? I am very much against, as you can tell, using country of origin as a basis for allowing/disallowing. The only requirement I can really think of is potential immigrants being able to prove they have enough money to live until they find work. But then, what do we do with the case of asylum seekers? People who come here because they're persecuted at home, because there is war in their home country?
And this supposed economic worry of yours. Can you at least explain it? We've already covered that you aren't a Daily Mail reader so it's not like you think that every immigrant is here to steal welfare cheques from the tax payer. Are you worried they're here to take our jobs? With or without immigrants, plenty of employees will pay minimum wage, thus keeping down average earnings. If we're going to stop immigrants coming to this country because they might possibly take minimum wage jobs, does that mean we need to start ferrying UK nationals out of the country for the same reasons? There are too many of these probably silly questions I can put forward.
We are all entitled to a view - that is the mechanism of democracy - we don't all have to be politicians, but interest in politics helps.
I think Immigration should match the skills requirements and capacity planning of the destination country. If an immigrant has the skills to improve the economy of the country they want to immigrate to, and the country lacks those skills, then there is a good synergy and benefit between the two. We can not control the number of people moving to the UK from the new EU countries. I am not against immigration per se, and I don't think UKIP are either. I agree with them that the current uncontrolled rates of EU immigration are too much though. Our ability to accept immigrants from the rest of the world is severely hampered by our commitment to EU policy.
I think it is obvious there should be limits to immigration - for any country. I also think that political asylum is an entirely separate issue and that our asylum policy is fair. To be called a racist, nationalist or xenophobe is a cheap deflection from the real issues that have nothing to do with race at all.
What is happening because of zero hours contracts is that employers can pay beneath the minimum wage for weekly employment and also deny employment rights (sick/holiday pay, etc) to their workforce. Often immigrant work-forces are prepared to work beneath the minimum wage and "off the books". I believe that the unemployed have to accept zero hours contracts as work or benefits are removed. Zero hours contracts are good for employers, since they can dictate if and when an employee can work on a daily basis. Sometimes people have to turn up to a job to be told whether there is work for them that day. I feel this is unacceptable and an echo of Victorian values on labour.
As another specific example, in the mid 2000's many Polish people immigrated here (because of Poland's acceptance as an EU member state) and provided building services (for example) below the rates that UK building firms charged, which put many self-employed UK builders out of business. Some did give great value, but others did not follow UK building and safety regulations, VAT and tax payments. Many sent wages back to Poland, so the wealth generated was not recirculated in the UK economy.
A larger picture is about infrastructure and the ability to cope with a rapidly growing, unchecked population in terms of transport, schools, homes, energy, health and other needs. As an example of one of these; the current housing shortage and price bubble is indicative of a rise in population that increases demand. This means that interest rates have to stay ridiculously low, else people who have bought houses can't afford interest increases on their high mortgages. It also means that landlords can charge extortionate rents and have punitive contracts that can remove tenants at short notice. Alternatively, people will live in ever-smaller boxes now, rather than have some space to live.
I've made it quite clear what I think already in this thread and was asking you about your ideas. If you are to criticize others for their view, then perhaps having views of your own would be beneficial to you. I think the notion of repatriation is ridiculous and offensive, if that's what you were suggesting as one of your questions.
Log in to comment