Gransnet forums

Chat

Why would reducing future numbers of immigrants to levels of numbers of the 1990's be such a problem?

(56 Posts)
obieone Thu 07-Jul-16 07:12:26

Is it because immigrants that are here[legal or illegal] want their relatives here too?

Nelliemoser Wed 11-Oct-17 07:36:18

Who would do all the farm labouring fruit and veg packing etc that is currently done by EU migrants? The things some Brits regard as immigrant jobs.

I might just suggest that a lot is work Brits CBA to do.

As it happens a lot of this work is in East Anglia which has always been the area where British market gardening is done. Near where I live there are a lot of EU citizens working in food packing for super markets on shift work basis. Who else would do this and what would the food retailers do without it?

petra Thu 24-Aug-17 16:06:22

It will be interesting to see what happens in the eu parliament today.
It doesn't look like Poland is going to back down on Germany's , oh sorry, I meant the eu's demand that they take their share of migrants.
The trouble is poor Poland took the kings shilling and possibly didn't realise there was a price to pay: to be dictated to.

GracesGranMK2 Thu 24-Aug-17 13:33:10

And people say that there is nothing we can do to stop asylum seekers

Who says, Petra?

GracesGranMK2 Thu 24-Aug-17 13:31:10

So many students choose degrees that they fancy are topical,or they see as an easy option, rather than researching the job market to find subjects that are in demand.

That is simply not true GrandTea.

GracesGranMK2 Thu 24-Aug-17 12:41:11

This is not 'chat', it should be in News and Politics.

Ilovecheese Thu 24-Aug-17 12:36:53

",nowadays young people want to do as little as possible."
That is a very unpleasant remark

Jane10 Thu 24-Aug-17 11:07:14

As ever there is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
The only real answer is for men to just stop fighting! Then they could get on with cultivating their land, their economies etc. That wont happen any time soon though. There's always some sort of often petty difference that has to be addressed with guns and bombs. Sigh

paddyann Thu 24-Aug-17 09:10:02

where would you suggest Asylum seekers go? They get very littlle money,a roof over their head and a lot of them are in detention centres with high wire or walls around them ,These are people who have lost their homes or families..who are at risk for being the "wrong" religion or politics or sexuality in their home countries.If it was one of your family would you not want someone to offer a helping hand? We have a friend whose job is to escort failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin,he says its heartbreaking hearing some of the stories and he does not feel many should be made to go back.On the other hand there are loads who say they would return to their home country when life is back to "normal .

Jane10 Thu 24-Aug-17 08:41:32

We know all this but the very poor uneducated people who are the targets of unscrupulous traffickers believe everything they are told - benefits and free housing for all in good old UK.

BlueBelle Thu 24-Aug-17 08:32:14

Galah that's ridiculous and sounds like a daily mail headlines why do some people think people walk into the country and hold their hands out for benefits seriously would I choose cold, wet, unwelcoming Uk to be spat on and hounded just to get benefits
In my area the main people not working are local folks all the European i know are full time workers in care homes factories, hospitals

Nelliemoser Thu 24-Aug-17 07:53:14

None of our poorly paid jobs would get done . Our market garden produce would not get picked . Streets not swept. Hospitals not staffed , etc etc .Hotels not serviced etc.

absent Wed 20-Jul-16 08:10:37

daphnedill Thanks. I just assumed – silly me – that the OP had the specific figure in mind for a particular reason and had simply forgotten to mention it.

durhamjen Wed 20-Jul-16 07:47:14

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/amber-rudd-and-boris-johnson-signal-that-net-migration-target-ha/

Net migration target has been scrapped. I wonder what Cameron thinks from the back benches.

JessM Wed 20-Jul-16 07:26:43

And if someone is on WTC these days they are getting pressured to take a job - any job or you lose benefit - or if no jobs pressured either to "become self employed" or work for nothing, If you are an hour late getting to job centre interview because the bus did not come they dock your money. I really can't imagine that many people are getting together enough money to get to UK, pay a deposit and a month's rent on somewhere to live for the privilege of doing battle wth the benefits system. And all for the pleasure of living in a rather cold and unwelcoming country where the press are briefing against immigrants (sorry... immigration) every day of the week. The UK is hardly is a bed of benefits-funded roses.
The graph on Migration Observatory shows that the majority of immigrants come here to study (thus helping our universities and our economy) and to do a definite job (thus helping our economy). The numbers coming to join a family or partner have remained fairly stable and have been higher in the past.
This is the trouble with dopey Cameron setting a target based on net migration. It counts in the biggest and most profitable (if we were a business) group and makes the numbers look problematic if universities sell more places abroad.

daphnedill Mon 18-Jul-16 23:42:14

I can't remember the details now, petra. They were the ones Cameron negotiated, but the EU cancelled them when the UK voted Leave. Nearly all benefits would only have been paid after somebody had been here for four years. From memory, I think the only one which would have been paid was Working Tax Credit, which is worth almost nothing now anyway. The logic was that if somebody is working and paying tax (which you have to be to receive WTC), the tax credit is a refund of money already paid for the very low paid. We're talking about a few pounds a week, not hundreds.

petra Mon 18-Jul-16 23:11:04

"They wouldn't have received most benefit payments for for years"
So they would still be getting some benefits, why?

daphnedill Mon 18-Jul-16 22:53:06

Why would they come to the UK when they can get better benefit payments elsewhere?

If the country hadn't voted to leave the EU, they wouldn't have received most benefit payments for four years.

Galen Mon 18-Jul-16 22:32:25

Our benefit payments are too good for them not to come.
Please note! IM NOT SAYING THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE WRONG!

Galen Mon 18-Jul-16 22:30:52

But I doubt it!

Galen Mon 18-Jul-16 22:30:33

That does seem possible

durhamjen Mon 18-Jul-16 21:39:50

I read today that the government will probably reach its immigration figures next year, because they will not want to come because of our dire financial problems.

daphnedill Mon 18-Jul-16 21:35:37

The serious point I was making was that the UK is not likely to be overrun by an 8 mile queue of refugees (as in Farage's photo). The vast majority of immigrants to the UK are legally here to work or study. British universities make a fortune from non-EU students.

durhamjen Mon 18-Jul-16 21:23:21

There is actually a refugee team, daphne, so not that far fetched. GB misses out again.

daphnedill Mon 18-Jul-16 21:03:04

If any asylum seeker currently in Hungary manages to run through Austria and Germany, finds a bike to reach Calais then swim across the Channel, the UK might just have time to fast-track citizenship and enter him for the Olympics triathlon. grin

daphnedill Mon 18-Jul-16 20:57:23

@absent

The answer to your question about the number of immigrants...

There's a chart about halfway down the page.

www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk

Migration Observatory is the best source of FACTUAL information about immigration to the UK.