We are desperately dependent on immigrants to keep our nation functioning. Then leaving them living in uncertainty for almost half their lives potentially seems like scumbag behaviour.
If we actually wanted to reduce immigration all we need to do is give migrants more rights, require generous pay and suddenly there wouldn’t be so much demand for them because they wouldn’t be worth the price, but we won’t do that because we need them too badly to fill the hole in our economy, all the bad jobs that there aren’t enough uk nationals to fill. Treating them as equals who can earn their right to live here simply by doing the work we cannot do ourselves anymore feels like the least we can do, a minimum of the respect they are due. Dragging it out as long as possible is the action of a dodgy boss, not a nation worthy of respect.
No we’re not. This level of immigration is for wage supreasion. It’s big business using these people, and it’s sad.We don’t need more people when there aren’t enough jobs to go around, especially for going people.
You’re not wrong that it suppresses wages. And if we “just” wanted to fix that we could (by increasing the minimum wage for immigrants perhaps). Interesting that all our anti-immigration policies are less about doing that and more about bullying people.
But on the flip side, we do need immigration. Wage suppression is only a part of it, at some point wages can’t go up because the money doesn’t exist (especially for the kind of roles we need, the kind of person who needs a carer doesn’t have unlimited funds), and we’ll need it more and more as time goes on too. We genuinely need a growing pool of workers whilst we have an aging population. We’re not making enough young workers ourselves to care for our aging population. And turns out the amount of money you need to offer people to make them comfortable to have more kids is rediculously high, so immigration is filling the gap at a much cheaper price.
Eventually the world will shift and immigration will dry up because everyone else will be in the same boat as we are now, then we’ll have no choice but to throw money at the birth rate. Probably at a cost so high we’ll have to concider some pretty terrible things to pay for it, but for now immigration is saving us from that fate.
If someone doesn’t work for 20 years? No, we don’t rely on them.
Unpopular opinion here… but that’s a leech. I’m not from here either but I got to work for it. People native here? Also got to work to get unemployment money.
We don’t live in dystopia. Lemmy has some insane takes and this is top of the list. People expect to get stuff for free with literally zero contribution on claim.
If someone doesn’t work for 20 years? Other than any Brits who go to university, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant here.
This is discussing people who do work, and how long they need to work before we trust them enough to treat them like citizens.
If someone comes here at 18 and works for 5 years… this may shock you, but they’ve been a net benefit to the country to the tune of 5 man-years of work (minus their salary, which presumably is less than the labour, or nobody would be throwing money at them). They are already better for the economy than an equivalent Brit since they didn’t spent 18 years being a drag on the economy (instead they were a drag of whatever poor country wasted the resources prepping them for us!).
Hypothetically the absolutely most untrusting and stingy position we could take would be to require someone to work long enough to pay off the cost of caring for them for the rest of their life. That would mean assuming they immediately stop working the moment they earn leave to remain. But that would be like a life insurance company saying “we’ll insure you for £100000 but you need to pay us £100000 to cover the risk”.
Thankfully we can very easily predict how people behave in aggregate. We could pick a number where we’re near guaranteed to come out ahead, I bet it’d be embarrassingly short (most people work to just before pension age). But that’s not what’s driving this policy. This policy exists to look “tough on immigration”, but not too tough because we are actually dependent on immigration. Enough to ruin lives without you know… accidentally having any real effect on immigration numbers, since they would be a disaster.
So it’s just political manoeuvring designed to have no real effect on the thing people want to change (because they thing can’t change, we need it too much) but will still do massive damage.
Might as well “solve” small boats by regularly nuking the English Channel, its equivalent levels of bullshit.
It may be a bad policy, but is it actually morally evil? And if so, how?
It could be beneficial to keep people here for less than 15 years, then replace their positions when there is a UK national to fill the job. There are people who would be happy to work abroad to send money back home, I knew a professional who followed the money and had been to several countries before.
Albeit, you are possibly right. I think the points based idea is a good one
I never said evil, but I do think immoral, as I outlined in my previous comment, we’re talking about benefitting from people dedicating a significant amount of their working lives to this country doing jobs we are failing to do ourselves. Leaving those people in limbo for so long isn’t fair to them. This is just statistics to us, but it’s their lives getting uprooted.
If people are bouncing between different countries and jobs, good for them, and this policy won’t change things for them one bit, because they already wouldn’t be eligible, and if they’re bouncing around they really wouldn’t be interested either.
You could just not come here if you don’t agree to those terms, then? A nation controlling it’s borders in a way that respects human rights isn’t evil or immoral.
Also, I am not a fan of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor*
What can I tell you man, karma is a bitch and works on long timescales.
British government and European governments in general didn’t respect the wishes of other countries on planet when they were looting & colonizing them.
This is just an instance of “what goes around comes around”.
If your claims about sovereignty didn’t apply to other countries in the past, they also wouldn’t apply to UK now.
The UK didn’t colonise those two. They’re chosen as examples as those are the top two sources of illegal migrants entering the UK. That’s why I said it’s a dumb take.
You speak some amount of shite. Afghanistan may not have been successfully held but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t major upheaval and displacement there.
Following the defeat of Italian forces in East Africa during World War II, Eritrea came under British administration as a United Nations trust territory from 1942 to 1952.[3]
The Third Anglo-Afghan War (Pashto: دریم انګلو افغان جنګ), also known as the Third Afghan War, the British-Afghan war of 1919[37] and in Afghanistan as the War of Independence,[37] began on 6 May 1919 when the Emirate of Afghanistan invaded British India and ended with an armistice on 8 August 1919.[38][39][40][41][42] The war resulted in the Afghans winning back control of foreign affairs from Britain, and the British recognizing Afghanistan as an independent nation.[43]
The United Kingdom did not contribute nor actively oppose the communist-led Saur Revolution. It opposed the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and provided both indirect and direct support for the Afghan mujahideen fighters in their struggle against the Soviet Union which included arming, funding, training and supplying various factions covertly, most notably support for Ahmad Shah Massoud in the Panjshir Valley.
Operation Herrick was the operational name for the British Armed Forces’ operations during the War in Afghanistan, from 2002 to the end of combat operations in 2014.
Ministers – including the housing secretary, Angela Rayner – had raised concerns about the effect the rules would have on care workers already in the UK who would be likely to face a 15-year wait for settlement, also known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
The government’s response to the consultation on the reforms, which will be put before MPs on Monday, is expected give some exemption to care workers already in the UK, though most other professions will face the lengthy waits for settlement.
In June, Rayner described making care workers already in Britain wait up to 15 years for permanent residence as “un-British”. In September, the energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, said the plans would have been “tough” for her family, who came to Britain as refugees.
Signatories argue that changing the rules for people who have planned their lives around existing settlement requirements would be unfair and could encourage essential workers to leave the country.
I don’t think it should apply to people already in the UK retroactively, it’s a bit unfair. I believe they walked it back though to the point that’s the case?
How? We are allowed to dictate the terms on which people stay in the UK
We are desperately dependent on immigrants to keep our nation functioning. Then leaving them living in uncertainty for almost half their lives potentially seems like scumbag behaviour.
If we actually wanted to reduce immigration all we need to do is give migrants more rights, require generous pay and suddenly there wouldn’t be so much demand for them because they wouldn’t be worth the price, but we won’t do that because we need them too badly to fill the hole in our economy, all the bad jobs that there aren’t enough uk nationals to fill. Treating them as equals who can earn their right to live here simply by doing the work we cannot do ourselves anymore feels like the least we can do, a minimum of the respect they are due. Dragging it out as long as possible is the action of a dodgy boss, not a nation worthy of respect.
No we’re not. This level of immigration is for wage supreasion. It’s big business using these people, and it’s sad.We don’t need more people when there aren’t enough jobs to go around, especially for going people.
You’re not wrong that it suppresses wages. And if we “just” wanted to fix that we could (by increasing the minimum wage for immigrants perhaps). Interesting that all our anti-immigration policies are less about doing that and more about bullying people.
But on the flip side, we do need immigration. Wage suppression is only a part of it, at some point wages can’t go up because the money doesn’t exist (especially for the kind of roles we need, the kind of person who needs a carer doesn’t have unlimited funds), and we’ll need it more and more as time goes on too. We genuinely need a growing pool of workers whilst we have an aging population. We’re not making enough young workers ourselves to care for our aging population. And turns out the amount of money you need to offer people to make them comfortable to have more kids is rediculously high, so immigration is filling the gap at a much cheaper price.
Eventually the world will shift and immigration will dry up because everyone else will be in the same boat as we are now, then we’ll have no choice but to throw money at the birth rate. Probably at a cost so high we’ll have to concider some pretty terrible things to pay for it, but for now immigration is saving us from that fate.
If someone doesn’t work for 20 years? No, we don’t rely on them.
Unpopular opinion here… but that’s a leech. I’m not from here either but I got to work for it. People native here? Also got to work to get unemployment money.
We don’t live in dystopia. Lemmy has some insane takes and this is top of the list. People expect to get stuff for free with literally zero contribution on claim.
If someone doesn’t work for 20 years? Other than any Brits who go to university, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant here.
This is discussing people who do work, and how long they need to work before we trust them enough to treat them like citizens.
If someone comes here at 18 and works for 5 years… this may shock you, but they’ve been a net benefit to the country to the tune of 5 man-years of work (minus their salary, which presumably is less than the labour, or nobody would be throwing money at them). They are already better for the economy than an equivalent Brit since they didn’t spent 18 years being a drag on the economy (instead they were a drag of whatever poor country wasted the resources prepping them for us!).
Hypothetically the absolutely most untrusting and stingy position we could take would be to require someone to work long enough to pay off the cost of caring for them for the rest of their life. That would mean assuming they immediately stop working the moment they earn leave to remain. But that would be like a life insurance company saying “we’ll insure you for £100000 but you need to pay us £100000 to cover the risk”.
Thankfully we can very easily predict how people behave in aggregate. We could pick a number where we’re near guaranteed to come out ahead, I bet it’d be embarrassingly short (most people work to just before pension age). But that’s not what’s driving this policy. This policy exists to look “tough on immigration”, but not too tough because we are actually dependent on immigration. Enough to ruin lives without you know… accidentally having any real effect on immigration numbers, since they would be a disaster.
So it’s just political manoeuvring designed to have no real effect on the thing people want to change (because they thing can’t change, we need it too much) but will still do massive damage.
Might as well “solve” small boats by regularly nuking the English Channel, its equivalent levels of bullshit.
It may be a bad policy, but is it actually morally evil? And if so, how?
It could be beneficial to keep people here for less than 15 years, then replace their positions when there is a UK national to fill the job. There are people who would be happy to work abroad to send money back home, I knew a professional who followed the money and had been to several countries before.
Albeit, you are possibly right. I think the points based idea is a good one
I never said evil, but I do think immoral, as I outlined in my previous comment, we’re talking about benefitting from people dedicating a significant amount of their working lives to this country doing jobs we are failing to do ourselves. Leaving those people in limbo for so long isn’t fair to them. This is just statistics to us, but it’s their lives getting uprooted.
If people are bouncing between different countries and jobs, good for them, and this policy won’t change things for them one bit, because they already wouldn’t be eligible, and if they’re bouncing around they really wouldn’t be interested either.
15 years of precarity is evil. I wouldn’t expect a monarchist and Prince Andrew fan to understand the difference between right and wrong though.
You could just not come here if you don’t agree to those terms, then? A nation controlling it’s borders in a way that respects human rights isn’t evil or immoral.
Also, I am not a fan of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor*
What can I tell you man, karma is a bitch and works on long timescales.
British government and European governments in general didn’t respect the wishes of other countries on planet when they were looting & colonizing them.
This is just an instance of “what goes around comes around”.
If your claims about sovereignty didn’t apply to other countries in the past, they also wouldn’t apply to UK now.
Yeah, the UK colonised Afghanistan and Eritrea.
This is such a dumb take. Maybe we should invade these countries again and make recolonise them.
Pretty sure you’re missing some more countries on that list 🙂.
You can try for sure, but as I said, karma is a bitch.
Learn from the mistakes of your ancestors.
The UK didn’t colonise those two. They’re chosen as examples as those are the top two sources of illegal migrants entering the UK. That’s why I said it’s a dumb take.
You speak some amount of shite. Afghanistan may not have been successfully held but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t major upheaval and displacement there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea–United_Kingdom_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan–United_Kingdom_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herrick
People are leaving Afghanistan because the British left and the previous forces from before the brits retook power, lol.
I don’t think it should apply to people already in the UK retroactively, it’s a bit unfair. I believe they walked it back though to the point that’s the case?