[HazeGe]

Theresa May is planning to cut net migration to 100,000 as a result her new control on immigration.

I think this is a very bad idea, primarily because of economic reasons.

Any thoughts?

[One Degree]

Depends on who those 100,000 are. Are they really needed? If not, then she is a fool for artificially increasing population at all.

[SolarCross]

Theresa May is planning to cut net migration to 100,000 as a result her new control on immigration.

I think this is a very bad idea, primarily because of economic reasons.

Any thoughts?

It will play well with the masses. There will be a security pay off assuming it can be implemented. It will have no serious effect on the economy*.

The only issue I have is that targets like this can't realistically be met without fudgery because when it comes to handling the actual practical matter of processing visas and naturalisation requests all one can do is set the criteria for gaining those privileges but one can't control how many will attempt to go through these processes and how many will be able to meet the criteria. Consequently the chances of meeting this target are slim and if you did run real high on the criteria then the chances are it will be overshot by a considerable margin, because again you can't realistically predict exactly how many will apply and how many will meet the criteria. Not meeting the target means dreary jeering from the opposition who will, self servingly, try to spin it as a failure.

The UK is an extremely desirable piece of real estate, we can afford to be choosey who we let in.

*While there is very little unemployment in the UK, we are on the verge of an automation revolution which may prematurely retire vast swathes of the population. If it comes to that then the fewer idle mouthes to feed the better. Even if it doesn't come to pass, strong demand for labour helps wage growth which consequently puts more taxes in the government's pocket and reduces its liabilities via welfare...

[Drlee]

Makes total sense to me. A careful immigration program can only be a benefit to any country. As Solar Cross said, it will be very popular. So my vote is to agree with her. This time.

[demima]

Would that be the same Theresa May that has been promising to cut immigration to the tens of thousands for the past 7 years, and failing every year? She's just trying to appease the kippers by saying things that they want to hear.

[Heisenberg]

Theresa May is planning to cut net migration to 100,000 as a result her new control on immigration.

The Tories first promised to cut net migration to 100,000 in 2010. Since then, they've been in power for seven straight years, and have not even come close.

I find it hilarious that Tory voters are so stupid (or masochistic) to keep believing this pathetic woman.

[Decky]

The Tories always promise to cut immigration but they never do it as their business paymasters want more immigration not less. When will people get it through their heads that it is the right wing parties that are pro immigration? The last time we had a left wing government in the UK was 1979, the right have had total power ever since then and immigration has skyrocketed in that time. Immigration weakens trade unions and pushes down wages for working class people, this is why the right will always and forever push for more and more of it while in government while pretending to be anti immigration at election time to fool morons into voting for them.

[SolarCross]

The Tories always promise to cut immigration but they never do it as their business paymasters want more immigration not less. When will people get it through their heads that it is the right wing parties that are pro immigration? The last time we had a left wing government in the UK was 1979, the right have had total power ever since then and immigration has skyrocketed in that time. Immigration weakens trade unions and pushes down wages for working class people, this is why the right will always and forever push for more and more of it while in government while pretending to be anti immigration at election time to fool morons into voting for them.

It isn't as easy as that, being part of the EU meant having to open the doors to EU nationals which wasn't a huge issue when EU nationals were just French, Germans, Spanish etc because the standard of living in those countries was not much different. When poor post-Soviet block countries like Poland, Bulgaria and Romania joined that trickle of interchange became a net flood, which could hardly be stemmed without seriously flouting the rules we agreed to abide by.

It is a lot easier to manage immigration from non-EU countries but even there a lot comes in via family relations who already have British citizenship, which is problematic not to say cold hearted to stop.

I know from personal experience that the crtieria for naturalisation creeps upwards over the years as TPTB try to ineffectually stem the flow. There is just no shortage of people that want to come here.

[Seeker8]

It isn't as easy as that, being part of the EU meant having to open the doors to EU nationals which wasn't a huge issue when EU nationals were just French, Germans, Spanish etc because the standard of living in those countries was not much different. When poor post-Soviet block countries like Poland, Bulgaria and Romania joined that trickle of interchange became a net flood, which could hardly be stemmed without seriously flouting the rules we agreed to abide by.

The EU has rules to restrict immigration but the UK(i.e tories and red tories) chose not to implement them:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... mmigration

[SolarCross]

The EU has rules to restrict immigration but the UK(i.e tories and red tories) chose not to implement them:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... mmigration

The rules

Though EU citizens are initially permitted to live in any member state, after three months they must prove that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have "sufficient resources" (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be "a burden on the benefits system". Far from being unconditional, then, the right to free movement is highly qualified.

These rules do nothing to prevent immigration particularly in a country with low unemployment. Point of fact the vast, vast, vast majority of EU immigrants have gotten employment well within three months. This rule might work pretty well in Spain or Greece where unemployment is high, but UK is not like these countries.

The irony is that the supposedly immigration-averse UK has never enforced these conditions. Even under Theresa May, the Home Office judged that the cost of recording entry and exit dates was too high. Since most EU migrants are employed (and contribute significantly more in taxes than they do in benefits), there was no economic incentive to do so.

This was probably a good call. Otherwise we'd just be wasting bureaucrat man-hours on paperwork that wouldn't result in anyone having to leave.

[Quantum]

It is a lot easier to manage immigration from non-EU countries but even there a lot comes in via family relations who already have British citizenship, which is problematic not to say cold hearted to stop.

The Tories are motivated by cheap labour not humanitarianism. They could stop non-EU immigration tomorrow and not lose any seats but they will never reduce immigration for the stated reason. Immigration has been exponentially increasing for the last 70 years, yet delusional Tory voters still think that the Tories will deliver some immigrant-free utopia.

[Political Interest]

She will not meet these targets. It is purely for media consumption. All conservative politicians like to make platitudes about reducing immigration and all of them do it here and there. In all reality nothing ever changes. The conservatives love immigration providing the immigrants assimilate into upper middle class values and become successful middle class career people. The ideology of the conservatives is not at all prejudiced. Anyone can participate providing they show themselves to be competitive, hard working and able to survive in a free market environment. This is why most conservatives believe that anyone can become British and assimilate into a civic British identity.

Whenever a serious opponent of mass immigration arises within the ranks of the Conservative Party he is ostracised and marginalised. Enoch Powell was the only centre right politician in the UK who was serious about ending mass immigration into the country. As we know, he was isolated by the party as soon as he gave his famous speech in 1968.

[Quantum]

Some Tories think by electing Tory MPs, they will reverse the demographics and get the "ethnics" out. If you stop all immigration, higher birthrates from ethnic minorities plus emigration would mean that the ethnic minority population will continue to grow. The horse has bolted a long time ago.

Voting for the importation of mostly Labour voters must require a special leap of logic. You're not getting an Enoch Powell-style nationalist government with Theresa May or any other Tory.

Tory voters should have voted UKIP or BNP. At least they're anti immigration.

[Atlantis]

Theresa May is planning to cut net migration to 100,000 as a result her new control on immigration.

I think this is a very bad idea, primarily because of economic reasons.

Any thoughts?

Intra-European migration has worked remarkably well for over half a century. Germany during the 60s and 70s had nearly 14 million guest-workers, mostly from the South of Europe. They helped to create the economic miracle in the North and increased living standards in the South. That is the reason we can have free-movement of people and open borders in Europe and don't need to build a wall like the one Trump wants to build between the US and Mexico.

Open borders increase the quality of life of citizens, strengthen democracy and the rule of law across Europe and help to spread prosperity across the continent.

The only problem in this scenario is the irrationality of British politics. And since the Brits aren't about to change any time soon, the only solution is Brexit. Brexit will reduce the rights of British citizens and make them poorer. The number of immigrants to the UK will decline because the country will become poorer since it can not longer profit from the EU.

In many respects, for the UK, Brexit happens at the worst possible moment. Living standards in Eastern Europe are rapidly increasing, reducing immigration-pressure for low-wage jobs in the UK. Even in the poorest parts of the EU, farm laborers are now imported from as Far as Bangladesh, Pakistan or Thailand, because Poles or Bulgarians no longer want to do those jobs. It goes without saying that the Brits won't want to to those jobs either. Thus, like with Italian guest-workers to Germany, the issue of East European guest-workers to the UK would have been resolved to the mutual benefit. So what did the UK gain by replacing Polish workers with Pakistani workers at a time that shift would have happened anyways? To cut yourself from the most important market in the world is certainly a price too high to pay.

I won't go into why the timing of Brexit is even worse in other respects for the UK, since this is about immigration.

[Drlee]

Open borders increase the quality of life of citizens, strengthen democracy and the rule of law across Europe and help to spread prosperity across the continent.

One out of three is a failing grade.

[Decky]

It isn't as easy as that, being part of the EU meant having to open the doors to EU nationals which wasn't a huge issue when EU nationals were just French, Germans, Spanish etc

More proof that right wingers are just faux patriots, the French, Germans and Spaniards are the biggest enemies this nation has ever had. You want to import the heirs of Bonaparte, Hitler and Philip II? Eurotrash are the ones with the technology and the skills to harm us the most, we have even allowed the French to acquire nuclear weapons.

Whenever a serious opponent of mass immigration arises within the ranks of the Conservative Party he is ostracised and marginalised. Enoch Powell was the only centre right politician in the UK who was serious about ending mass immigration into the country. As we know, he was isolated by the party as soon as he gave his famous speech in 1968.

It is interesting too see how much the right idolise dear old Enoch, you know in power (when he was minister for health) he was massively pro immigration and imported loads of nurses from he Caribbean to fill a labour shortage right?

Like all right wingers he just talked about opposing immigration while doing the exact opposite. It is odd how he is often held up as the true, pure example by anti immigration folks, he was just as two faced on the issue as any Tory is.

[Ned Lud]

Theresa May is planning to cut net migration to 100,000 as a result her new control on immigration.

I think this is a very bad idea, primarily because of economic reasons.

Any thoughts?

It is not a serious policy - just a silly Brexiteer noise, an unmusical accompaniment to the self-destruction of the tory party.

[Patrickov]

I think the Tories bashers here should consider the problem that other parties cannot get themselves accepted by those voting Tories but might not be as willing as you think.

From what I see in Hong Kong, bad guys seem more capable on feeding people's mouth to keep them "united", while good guys less so. Apparently it's the same case even in UK or US.

[Sasa]

I think the Tories bashers here should consider the problem that other parties cannot get themselves accepted by those voting Tories but might not be as willing as you think.

From what I see in Hong Kong, bad guys seem more capable on feeding people's mouth to keep them "united", while good guys less so. Apparently it's the same case even in UK or US.

Indeed, "unite" is an alternative way to say, force people to comply, like rape. The North Korea regime is keen to "unite" the south too.

[Patrickov]

Indeed, "unite" is an alternative way to say, force people to comply, like rape. The North Korea regime is keen to "unite" the south too.

In some sense you are right, although I didn't mean to include extreme cases like this, i.e. those complying do it more or less on their free-will, and always have options to exit.