Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. " What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services." This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years" So you’re saying everyone in those boats and hiding in trucks and coaches has £80k in cash and a job that pays £41k a year? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors " There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services." A skilled workforce from other countries that plug gaps in our internal job market is a proven success. Illegal immigration that creates no value and draws down on benefits, housing and all other elements is a burden we can do without. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ?" The government releases figures on both. A simple maths calculation in my head calculates the difference. Growth was 0.1 percent I believe? Recorded migration was about 730,000 which is well above 1% and it’s theorised that the actual migration figure is over a million because they have lost track of so many people. Simple maths | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free" Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years" Again, simply not true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years" If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I can’t speak for anyone else but my opinion of what a reasonable migration policy looks like is this…. We should only allow someone to come to this county to live if they bring something to the party. They should have the financial means to support themselves or the firm offer of a job. And either way the means to support themselves until the first payday and their pay be sufficient to negate the need for state benefits. They should have the financial means to source their own property in the private sector or family/friends they can live with until they have done so. They should not be able to claim any form of state benefits or permanent residency rights for a period of 10 years. If they lose their job then they should return to their country of origin until they have another. 3 months grace before this is enacted would be reasonable, as long as this is self funded. " Labour's proposed immigration reforms actually do these. Immigrants won't be eligible for permanent residency if they ever claimed benefits. Immigrants can apply for permanent residency only after 10 years, unless they are in the high tax bracket in which case you can apply in 3 years. They have increased the period from 5 to 10. These changes are supposed to kick in by April 2026 applying retroactively. The decision to apply retroactively was taken to stop the million who came during the Boriswave from getting permanent residency. Labour backbenchers are already rebelling against it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjm3ml3vgzo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free." Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true !" Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years Again, simply not true." Legal immigration was fucked by Boris Johnson. He opened up the care worker visa allowing them to be hired for much lower wages and the increase in visa period for people who are coming to study, there by resulting in increasing number of immigrants earning lower wages or not working at all. Then there are dependents. Labour already cancelled the care worker visa route. Tories cancelled dependent visa for people who are coming for study. So the numbers are falling down. It would be interesting to see if Shabana manages to enforce the new reforms she has proposed, going against the Labour backbenchers rebellion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required" If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat?" When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. " What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa " That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test?" It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ? The government releases figures on both. A simple maths calculation in my head calculates the difference. Growth was 0.1 percent I believe? Recorded migration was about 730,000 which is well above 1% and it’s theorised that the actual migration figure is over a million because they have lost track of so many people. Simple maths " Lol The trump school of statistics 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ? The government releases figures on both. A simple maths calculation in my head calculates the difference. Growth was 0.1 percent I believe? Recorded migration was about 730,000 which is well above 1% and it’s theorised that the actual migration figure is over a million because they have lost track of so many people. Simple maths Lol The trump school of statistics 🤣" Like measuring sunshine in inches | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide" It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? " The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors " What are contributors? Last time I checked, they were people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too." Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible" It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? " The clue is in the name 'National' Health Service  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time "Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? The clue is in the name 'National' Health Service "So in your opinion National cannot be the meaning of state level infrastructure like National Grid or National Rail because those services are only available British Citizen, thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information "That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening. If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares."Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases. If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion. When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases.
If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion.
When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right?
""Words mean different things to different people". Isn't this what the left usually says when the gender argument comes up? And suddenly, words have clear meaning and semantics are important? Anyway, you still haven't addressed my original point about people coming in without permission getting free TB treatment but people asking for permission just being blocked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry" The link you gave called it "unlawful". In legal parlance there is an important distinction between "illegal" and "unlawful", but to the layman they mean the same thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases.
If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion.
When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right?
"Words mean different things to different people". Isn't this what the left usually says when the gender argument comes up? And suddenly, words have clear meaning and semantics are important?
Anyway, you still haven't addressed my original point about people coming in without permission getting free TB treatment but people asking for permission just being blocked."Let me address, is it lawful for them to get the treatment under current laws? If yes, I have no problem with that. If no, then they should face the law. Simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares."So are you saying if you try to enter with TB you'll be sent away ? Where to ? Seems strange but hey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
So are you saying if you try to enter with TB you'll be sent away ? Where to ? Seems strange but hey "If you apply for a work visa, you have to take TB test and your visa will be denied if you have TB. If you show up in a boat instead, you will be given free treatment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases.
If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion.
When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right?
"Words mean different things to different people". Isn't this what the left usually says when the gender argument comes up? And suddenly, words have clear meaning and semantics are important?
Anyway, you still haven't addressed my original point about people coming in without permission getting free TB treatment but people asking for permission just being blocked.
Let me address, is it lawful for them to get the treatment under current laws? If yes, I have no problem with that.
If no, then they should face the law. Simple"So if we change the law and deport people with TB, you will be happy with it right? Because all you care about is what it says in the law? And as the other poster pointed out, your own post says that it's "unlawful". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases.
If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion.
When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right?
"Words mean different things to different people". Isn't this what the left usually says when the gender argument comes up? And suddenly, words have clear meaning and semantics are important?
Anyway, you still haven't addressed my original point about people coming in without permission getting free TB treatment but people asking for permission just being blocked.
Let me address, is it lawful for them to get the treatment under current laws? If yes, I have no problem with that.
If no, then they should face the law. Simple
So if we change the law and deport people with TB, you will be happy with it right? Because all you care about is what it says in the law?
And as the other poster pointed out, your own post says that it's "unlawful"."Yes, whatever the law says, I am happy. I will use my rights to change a law if I am not satisfied but still be bound to it. Unlawful entry is where you arrive without a valid permit and evade immigration officers. On your arrival, if you submit yourself to immigration officers and claim asylum, you will be an irregular entrant. Again, semantics matter. It is in the document, it explains in detail as it a guidebook for immigration officers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years If you are entering UK legally, you need to take a TB test. I remember having to take one long back. If you are entering illegally, you don't have to do it. You just have to say yes are looking for asylum and you will have everything handed out for free. Depends on the country you are coming from. If you are coming from countries listed then you need to have TB test otherwise, not required If you are coming from one of these countries in a boat? When you are coming to the shores of this country to claim asylum, regardless of the origin country, you will be health screened. What happens if they come in boat and fail the TB test? It seems gov.uk website has that information as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tuberculosis-tb-migrant-health-guide It basically admits what I said in my original post. If you are trying to come in legally, they will block you if you test positive for TB. If you come here illegally and you have TB, you are welcome and you will be given some free treatment too. Gov.UK is an amazing repository of information, not illegal, irregular entry https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible It basically says exactly what I said in my first post. Instead of posting the same link like a bot, if you can actually make a point, it would be less wasteful of others time
Your chosen word to describe a certain arrival method was wrong, the last link is the official wording, it is not illegal entry, irregular entry
Wish I was a bot, then I would be very happy consuming incorrect information
That's the usual left wing cop out to argue on semantics instead of arguing about what's really happening.
If you try to get permission to enter the country and you have TB, you will not be allowed. But if you enter the country without asking permission and you test positive for TB, you will be given free treatment. Is that true or not? You can call it irregular or illegal or whatever you want. No one cares.
Semantics matters because in law and public policy, the exact words used determine people’s rights, the government’s powers, and the outcome of real cases.
If you change the language, you change the framing and directly influencing public opinion.
When someone finds you influential, they take whatever you say, right or wrong. And when wrong is voiced enough, no one questions what is right?
"Words mean different things to different people". Isn't this what the left usually says when the gender argument comes up? And suddenly, words have clear meaning and semantics are important?
Anyway, you still haven't addressed my original point about people coming in without permission getting free TB treatment but people asking for permission just being blocked.
Let me address, is it lawful for them to get the treatment under current laws? If yes, I have no problem with that.
If no, then they should face the law. Simple
So if we change the law and deport people with TB, you will be happy with it right? Because all you care about is what it says in the law?
And as the other poster pointed out,
Yes, whatever the law says, I am happy. I will use my rights to change a law if I am not satisfied but still be bound to it.
"The rest of us are arguing that the legal framework is problematic and the law has to be changed. So you coming in and saying "this is what the law says" isn't useful. We all know what the law says. We are arguing that it has to be changed. If you have any arguments for why this should not be changed, go for it. Otherwise, you are only reiterating what we already know. " Unlawful entry is where you arrive without a valid permit and evade immigration officers. On your arrival, if you submit yourself to immigration officers and claim asylum, you will be an irregular entrant. Again, semantics matter. It is in the document, it explains in detail as it a guidebook for immigration officers " Doesn't make a big difference to what I am saying anyway. They will all get free treatment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years So you’re saying everyone in those boats and hiding in trucks and coaches has £80k in cash and a job that pays £41k a year? " Well, there are the rules for immigration. Maybe they are too tough they will change quite a lot in April 2023. Maybe people find €10,000 for the unofficial entire trip, including a 'ferry crossing' it's a better deal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unlawful entry is where you arrive without a valid permit and evade immigration officers." Nope. "Unlawful" means 'not in accordance with the law'. It's illegal to enter the UK if you don't have permission, so turning up without permission is illegal. Whether you go on to claim asylum or not. The government describe it as "unlawful" because anyone that claims asylum is immune from prosecution for immigration offences. "On your arrival, if you submit yourself to immigration officers and claim asylum, you will be an irregular entrant. Again, semantics matter. It is in the document, it explains in detail as it a guidebook for immigration officers" It's described as "irregular entry" in the guide for immigration officers because the processes were written a long time ago and made a distinction between those that have made a deliberate attempt to enter illegally, and those that have just made a mistake or arrived by some method that isn't specifically catered for. The guide says that asylum seekers should be treated "as if they were irregular entrants". It doesn't state that asylum seekers aren't illegal entrants, and it doesn't create a special category of law to cover them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true !" I suppose it's partially true my old neighbor came from south Africa and couldn't use the NHS for anything everything had to be private so it's might depend what county you enter from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? " Also… can someone tell pat… FYI… if someone is coming in on a student visa, or a family dependent visa…. They are not allowed to work, and not allowed to claim benefits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true !" Sorry pat… it is true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ? The government releases figures on both. A simple maths calculation in my head calculates the difference. Growth was 0.1 percent I believe? Recorded migration was about 730,000 which is well above 1% and it’s theorised that the actual migration figure is over a million because they have lost track of so many people. Simple maths Lol The trump school of statistics 🤣 Like measuring sunshine in inches " Also.. when quoting migration figures you need to be careful as that number includes foreign students who come here to study… so those people are temporary rather than permanent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? Also… can someone tell pat… FYI… if someone is coming in on a student visa, or a family dependent visa…. They are not allowed to work, and not allowed to claim benefits " People on family dependent visa are allowed to work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? Also… can someone tell pat… FYI… if someone is coming in on a student visa, or a family dependent visa…. They are not allowed to work, and not allowed to claim benefits " 'Not allowed to work' , sure all those Just Eat Drivers and 'Turkish' barbers are earning 41k 🤣🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Sorry pat… it is true " As explained already Donald, it really isn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? Also… can someone tell pat… FYI… if someone is coming in on a student visa, or a family dependent visa…. They are not allowed to work, and not allowed to claim benefits People on family dependent visa are allowed to work " And use NHS. And use free education system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal Immigrants cannot claim any benefits and pay £1500 a year to use the NHS, even if they have private medical insurance and don't need the NHS they still have to pay the NHS surcharge every single year. It's only after five years if you successfully apply and are given ILR that you can claim any benefits or use the NHS for free Have no idea where you have sourced that info but certainly not true ! Well the Gov.UK website says it is true, it is loaded with information like this or any other related if people care to read instead of saying not true https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa That's for skilled workers, and a recent change. Even if we ignore the huge abuse of that scheme we still have asylum seekers, student visa holders and family dependents who don't need to earn 41k to live here legally. As for the NHS provision how often is anyone asked for immigration status at GPs or A&E ? The idea of healthcare service in the UK is not related to anything, pure simple healthcare. If you require financial meanings to access NHS then a simple question comes to mind, why no or low income British Citizen should access it according to your logic? Also… can someone tell pat… FYI… if someone is coming in on a student visa, or a family dependent visa…. They are not allowed to work, and not allowed to claim benefits 'Not allowed to work' , sure all those Just Eat Drivers and 'Turkish' barbers are earning 41k 🤣🤣" Please show your working out for the £41k 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would add that for those given asylum on the basis their home country is too dangerous for them, anyone found returning to that country for holidays etc should immediately lose their asylum status and be refused re-entry. In Sweden recently a report found 70% of 'refugee' returned to their home country for visits." Agreed.. this is a major issue that is rarely brought up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services." Strongly disagree. Trying to fix those problems with more imigration is basically a ponzi scheme.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with both points there guys. I think a full medical on arrival and no NHS treatments for pre existing conditions. Prescriptions yes, but obviously paid for. After I posted I thought of an exception which I hope will keeps the left happy. Sponsorship Should a person receive sponsorship from a British Citizen or organisation, they can be exempt from the financial framework I proposed above. But they should not enjoy the benefits of our state funded public services. So no state education, no NHS treatments. What you are describing is pretty much the rules as they are now! You need sponsorship in the form of an employer paying £41,700 a year salary or more or a an existing family member with £80,000 cash or more to support you. You cannot just come if you don't have family here or a job, it's not allowed. Unlike other countries UK doesn't require a medical, which is why TB & Hep has spiked in recent years" Way way to meny loop holes and ways round it, when there are opt outs for certain sectors. Eg people come to work in the care industry then never actually work in the care industry.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would add that for those given asylum on the basis their home country is too dangerous for them, anyone found returning to that country for holidays etc should immediately lose their asylum status and be refused re-entry. In Sweden recently a report found 70% of 'refugee' returned to their home country for visits. Agreed.. this is a major issue that is rarely brought up." The men who 'flee' from countries like Syria, Somalia etc are often from relatively comfortable families which is how they can afford to smuggle themselves to Europe, and fly back when they fancy it. The people who are really in danger in those countries, and especially the women, can never get out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need immigration to help fund our public services, let alone getting people in to do the jobs that a lot of UK citizens would turn their noses up. Let immigrants come in, guarantee them a job (which they have to take - based on skills, qualifications etc) and then charge them 1.5 times the tax/NI that we pay for a defined period of time, before dropping down onto the rates that we pay. This would probably filter out those who genuinely want to stay and those that don’t. Obviously applicable laws would have to change or be brought in. If we reduce immigration by the amounts that some people want, then perhaps we all need to pay more taxes ourselves, because we are sleeping walking into some very big problems with how we fund our public services. This is fundamentally untrue. I’m not sure if it’s ever published as an actual figure but it will definitely exist. There will be a point at which, based on the amount of tax you pay, you become a net contributor to the common good. Someone who pays more into the system than they receive from it. I think they say top 1% of earners contribute around 30% of all income tax. They are net contributors to the system. Someone on benefits will pay very little into the system (vat, fags, booze etc) So to say we need more people is completely wrong. We need more contributors. The open borders system has lead to the exact opposite, this is proven by the population growing 10 times faster than the economy. We are importing far more people who are a net drain on public resources than those who are net contributors There's some excellent suggestions above but where is the data to prove the population is growing 10 times faster than the economy ? The government releases figures on both. A simple maths calculation in my head calculates the difference. Growth was 0.1 percent I believe? Recorded migration was about 730,000 which is well above 1% and it’s theorised that the actual migration figure is over a million because they have lost track of so many people. Simple maths Lol The trump school of statistics 🤣 Like measuring sunshine in inches Also.. when quoting migration figures you need to be careful as that number includes foreign students who come here to study… so those people are temporary rather than permanent " The ones that never leave aren’t. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All very sensible and reasonable, and all measures which lots of other countries already use. " Except for the bit about asylum seekers having to go to their local British Embassy to apply to come here. We'd need thousands more embassy staff because whole populations would take a punt on being accepted without having to cross any borders or straits... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All very sensible and reasonable, and all measures which lots of other countries already use. Except for the bit about asylum seekers having to go to their local British Embassy to apply to come here. We'd need thousands more embassy staff because whole populations would take a punt on being accepted without having to cross any borders or straits..." Nope, all done with roughly the same number of staff as we have now. Otherwise we may as well put on free transport for the whole world to come live here. Unlike labour thinking, applying doesn’t mean succeeding. Amnesty International has roughly 1500 cases of persecution and torture on their books. Let’s be generous and say they only know about 5% of it. That’s only 30,000 people spread across the western world. So maybe our quota is about 2,000 asylum seekers per year. Put them all to work and they don’t have to cost us anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. " 🎯 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. " Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. " So nwhy is the current government trying to reduce net migration then ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. So nwhy is the current government trying to reduce net migration then ?" The question is slightly off, but I will answer it as you posed it, but to be more factual it would have to have asked “why is the current government saying they want to reduce net migration”. Saying and doing are not the same thing. Saying is trying to take the wind out of Reforms sails. But if they do actually manage to get the figure below zero and have more leaving than arriving then I’ll be happy to stand corrected. Starmers idea of reducing migration is the same as their thwarted plans to reduce the benefits bill. The plan wasn’t to reduce, only to slow the rate of growth. That’s not the same thing, not even close. It’s important to analyse the words used and not just take the sound bites at face value. “We’ve got to get immigration under control” sound great but control could be an increase. “We will stop using hotels by 2029” but that is meaningless because they will just put the people elsewhere at similar cost and put more pressure on the housing market and make tens of thousands of Brits homeless in the process. Even the greens are campaigning against the Crowborough camp. “Immigration is falling and we want that to continue” sounds great only 730,000 increase instead of whatever number was forecast, I forget. Totally meaningless and actually misleading “We have removed more people than the previous government” again this sounds good but the figures include those that have left voluntarily and all the millionaires moving abroad to pay less tax. What’s also interesting is when Labour are talking about taxing the rich they give the impression there’s millions of them. But when it’s talked about them leaving there’s only like a couple of hundred in the pool to start with so can’t be that many. A better figure would be how many that arrive here illegally have been removed. I understand this figure is around 2-3%. Around 75% get permission to stay and around 20% vanish into the black economy, never to be heard from again. And let’s not forget that the flagship idea of our latest Home Secretary is to give them all ten grand each, pop them on the ferry to France where they will head to the nearest beach ready to come and collect their next payment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So having read some of this migrants can't do low paid employment. And the British citizens get benefit so don't end to do the low paid jobs. So dose this not leave it as a County where no one is doing low paid employment pushing up the cost of living to everyone." Supply and demand. If there are fewer people to fill low end jobs these jobs will be better paid and or have better terms and yes the benefit system does Disincentivize some people but that's a whole other debate... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. " Spot on.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. So nwhy is the current government trying to reduce net migration then ?" There not trying very hard... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So having read some of this migrants can't do low paid employment. And the British citizens get benefit so don't end to do the low paid jobs. So dose this not leave it as a County where no one is doing low paid employment pushing up the cost of living to everyone." "Supply and demand. If there are fewer people to fill low end jobs these jobs will be better paid and or have better terms ..." The other possibility is that those jobs will simply disappear. We're seeing this now with pubs and restaurants closing because they can't afford the increased staffing costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. So nwhy is the current government trying to reduce net migration then ? There not trying very hard..." Are you discussing migration, immigration or illegal immigration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate to break the news, but no amount of consideration, new rules including processing off-shore or any other rational idea will make much of a difference. Anyone arriving here by small boat claiming asylum, reporting they are fleeing from a country that we have no return agreement with has made the UK their home. I would also add that those who follow the script they are given will more than likely succeed too, maybe not on the first pass but under the appeal system it is more certain than not. There needs to be significant change to the 1951 refugee convention to begin making meaningful change. For reasons unknown, there is little appetite to make those obvious changes. Firstly most European countries have socialist governments. Their ideology is to welcome every freeloader that wants to come and have everyone else pay for it. Secondly, Starmer sees the economic growth that Blair got with massive population increases and thinks it’s the holy grail. He doesn’t understand that not all people contribute to economic growth in the same way. A doctor or engineer on £80k a year spends £80k a year. Someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns £200 a week, pays zero tax and gets universal credit topping it up. They have a shrinking effect on the economy as the more of those there are, the more everyone else has to pay in tax leaving them with less money to spend in the economy. And thirdly and most importantly, they think they are importing voters to their cause. If your policy is to take money from Peter and give it to Paul, you can count on Paul’s support at the ballot box. Until someone Paul knows who goes to the same place of worship stands and then they vote for him instead. So nwhy is the current government trying to reduce net migration then ? There not trying very hard... Are you discussing migration, immigration or illegal immigration " I'm discussing "net migration" as per the the quoted post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
