Let’s get real about migration

gillsterry

There is a lot on here about jobs for the refugees , i can remember when the factory shifts came to an end there would be hundreds marching out of the gates , now it is all automated by about a dozen people , Robots are taking over industry and there are no longer the jobs to go around so what happens we all go on benefits but how much longer can the Government keep finding the money for the British citizens before the immigrants need benefits as well , where does it all stop before we go bankrupt , who will come to the front of the queue

Look around you. How many potholes need filling? How much litter needs picking up? How many small areas most small towns just look neglected and could do with a makeover?

People could be paid minimum wage to improve their communities or care for their most vulnerable. Money they would be paid would be paid back in taxes either directly or being spent in the economy.

The replacement of jobs by AI is a huge issue - not caused by immigration.

You son't seem to differentiate between immigrants with visas and those without. Many of the perfectly legal immigrants with visas are in the UK because they are doing jobs which aren't being filled by UK citizens. Sometimes it's because UK citizens won't work for such low wages and poor conditions; sometimes there just aren't enough people with appropriate skills.

Let’s put some numbers on this then.
In the year ending June 2025, 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK. So 48% = 58,320.
According to the BBC, over 30,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far in (till September) 2025, so a similar percentage means a further 14,400 would be accepted.
So nearly 73,000 per annum, moving to the UK at no cost to the taxpayer?

We’re already hearing about RR’s planned attacks on taxpayers, so not sure about the no cost.

Mollygo

Let’s put some numbers on this then.
In the year ending June 2025, 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK. So 48% = 58,320.
According to the BBC, over 30,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far in (till September) 2025, so a similar percentage means a further 14,400 would be accepted.
So nearly 73,000 per annum, moving to the UK at no cost to the taxpayer?

We’re already hearing about RR’s planned attacks on taxpayers, so not sure about the ^no cost.^

It would appear that you only want to discuss asylum seekers. The OP was calling for a rational, unemotional discussion about immigration as a whole.

I keep trying growstuff.

For example, 47% of UK university funding comes from overseas students. Do people think that is the way forward, and relating it back to asylum seekers, do they realise this?

‘The number of asylum claims from people who originally arrived on student visas has increased more than those on other visa types in recent years, with 14,800 asylum claims in the year ending June 2025, though down from a peak of 16,500 in the year to June 2023.’ (Sky News)

The UK needs immigrants.

Have I imagined it or does UK have a sort of points based system and a guarantee of a salary over a certain limit for those wishing to come here through legal channels?

I have no idea how the government/establishment could incentivise home grown citizens to do the jobs that immigrants currently do.

The entire medical system, where UK graduates are unable to get a position needs looking at.

The education system needs to be expanded to include manual careers. Plumbers, electricians, builders etc will always be needed. Many of these professionals are now earning more than graduates ever will.

Your second and third paragraphs are working against each other GrannyGravy13. If only those who meet the points system requirements, which are for shortage professions, are allowed into the UK, nobody will be allowed in ‘who is prepared to do the jobs that immigrants do’, so the only alternative is for UK citizens to do those jobs. That’s one of the key things I think we could usefully discuss?

Casdon

Your second and third paragraphs are working against each other GrannyGravy13. If only those who meet the points system requirements, which are for shortage professions, are allowed into the UK, nobody will be allowed in ‘who is prepared to do the jobs that immigrants do’, so the only alternative is for UK citizens to do those jobs. That’s one of the key things I think we could usefully discuss?

I see what you mean.

There needs to be a change in the way some jobs are rated/respected.

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that there are uk citizens who feel that the caring professions are below them. (I don’t mean to insult anyone, I hope you understand)

I currently have a house constantly full of East European builders/craftsmen. They applied for leave to remain when we left the EU. They are contracted to a company which specialises in conservation/heritage buildings. There is a shortage of people in this field.

The he world is changing and all countries have to do a lot of rethinking.

growstuff

Fine, let’s talk about all immigrants, not just vague unquantified percentages, but also actual numbers.

E.g. in 2024, 948,000 people arrived in the UK expecting to stay for at least a year. Of these, 13% were asylum seekers or refugees, i.e. 122,000, meaning approximately 826,000 immigrants other than asylum seekers and refugees arrived in the UK.
This figure is based on the overall number of arrivals in 2024, minus the portion who were asylum seekers or refugees.
So the question is, how do we deal with the existing problems of housing, homelessness, food banks, child poverty, etc. whilst needing to fund the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK?

I think you’re right regarding the caring professions being seen as lowly by British citizens GrannyGravy13, likewise labouring and farm worker roles. Either that attitude has to be turned around, or we have to accept that first generation migrants will always be required to fill those roles going forward, as the children they have will also inherit our values.

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that there are uk citizens who feel that the caring professions are below them. (I don’t mean to insult anyone, I hope you understand)

Of course, it might also be that that some people think the caring professions are too badly remunerated to be considered...

I think there’s a lot more to it than just that MaizieD. Unsocial hours, travel between clients, and above all the nature of the job, with the sense carers have of falling short constantly in delivering the help people really need also put people off.

"So the question is, how do we deal with the existing problems of housing, homelessness, food banks, child poverty, etc. whilst needing to fund the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK?"

OK! At least this is being discussed rationally now. Dig a bit deeper. You'll find that the UK isn't funding the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK.

For a start, a significant number of those people are students, who have no recourse to public funds. They usually pay about three times the amount home students do for their fees. They're actually subsidising UK students and propping up a number of universities and providing employment for all the people who work in them.

Many other immigrants work for the NHS. Without them, the NHS would be in an even worse state. The irony is that, in addition to paying income tax and National Insurance, these people have to pay an immigration health surcharge (£3,105 for a 3-year visa) as part of their application process.

It would be interesting to see a full break-down of the cost of immigrants to the UK.

MaizieD

^I may be wrong but I get the feeling that there are uk citizens who feel that the caring professions are below them. (I don’t mean to insult anyone, I hope you understand)^

Of course, it might also be that that some people think the caring professions are too badly remunerated to be considered...

I’m a care worker, a shift worker, I consider it a worthy job to do and I’m not badly paid, nor are the other care workers I know.
Maybe some are behind the times on this.

Oreo I agree, some younger people want an Instagram career and veto the caring professions at the get go.

The Blair administration was so focused on getting more people into Universities, that many of these professions needed to sustain a caring society were downgraded and dismissed.

Caring, as opposed to nursing, has never been a profession that attracted many young people though. I can understand why, because carers carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and life experience is so important when dealing with others in a one to one situation. Historically it was middle aged women who made up the bulk of carers, but for a multitude of reasons, less are available then in the past. .

Casdon

Caring, as opposed to nursing, has never been a profession that attracted many young people though. I can understand why, because carers carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and life experience is so important when dealing with others in a one to one situation. Historically it was middle aged women who made up the bulk of carers, but for a multitude of reasons, less are available then in the past. .

I have first hand evidence that middle aged (and older) women were carers in the 19th and early 20th century. A search of the censuses from 1841-1921 shows the number of widows who worked firstly in workhouses (which is where the elderly, very sick and demented were sent) and later in various homes and hospitals. I have one ancestor who was till working in a workhouse when she was in her 80s.

I guess that even in those days being a carer was unpopular work. Young women would have gone into service, found somebody to marry, then if the husband died without a pension (as most would have done), the woman had to find some way to support herself - there would appear to have been plenty of vacancies in caring.

growstuff

"So the question is, how do we deal with the existing problems of housing, homelessness, food banks, child poverty, etc. whilst needing to fund the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK?"

OK! At least this is being discussed rationally now. Dig a bit deeper. You'll find that the UK isn't funding the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK.

For a start, a significant number of those people are students, who have no recourse to public funds. They usually pay about three times the amount home students do for their fees. They're actually subsidising UK students and propping up a number of universities and providing employment for all the people who work in them.

Many other immigrants work for the NHS. Without them, the NHS would be in an even worse state. The irony is that, in addition to paying income tax and National Insurance, these people have to pay an immigration health surcharge (£3,105 for a 3-year visa) as part of their application process.

It would be interesting to see a full break-down of the cost of immigrants to the UK.

So where exactly are the funds for those without jobs, without homes, without food coming from?
If the government aren’t funding them . . .

Before I go looking for an answer to that, maybe you'd like to find out just how many immigrants have no jobs, homes or food.

My personal experience of immigrants suggests that they do have jobs, homes and food. Both my next-door-neighbours are immigrants. There are four working adults, paying at least an average amount of income tax and National Insurance.

... and Council Tax.

Before I go hunting for that, maybe you’d like to identify how many people are using food banks, finding it hard to get homes, hospital appointments etc. before adding any more people to the island.

A significant number are students or are working.

Like you and many others we have immigrants living quite close by,

We do have people who are not immigrants, living next door, paying tax and NI. but I can’t match your next door neighbours claim.

We also have endless foreign uni students, being a university city, and friends and family members who are uni students, paying vast amounts for accommodation and tuition.

The concern is not over those who do pay, but over those who don’t and who continue to arrive in their thousands, for whatever reason.
We already have a society in which for some, benefits are the new wages.

Mollygo Do you have any evidence that immigrants are being supported by benefits?

My impression is that immigrants tend to be quite hard-working. If anything, they're propping up the non-working "indigenous" population.

I have no facts or figures. If I were to see something which suggested immigrants are costing the country billions, I'd have a re-think.

Supporting refugees and asylum seekers is a price the UK pays to be a respected first world country.

Before I go hunting for that, maybe you’d like to identify how many people are using food banks, finding it hard to get homes, hospital appointments etc. before adding any more people to the island.

The fact that these people exist has nothing to do with too many people in Britain. It is the result of the economic system that governments have adhered to since Thatcher in which the interests of 'the markets' and private enterprise, and people with wealth predominate and state services are cut to the bone.Also to her completely untrue statement that the state only has money raised by taxation.

If the government had the political will it could, among other things, put as much money as it liked into state services and investment in creating enough to serve the needs of all citizens, it could introduce progressive taxation which would result in a more equable distribution of the money* it issues into the economy* (because contrary to Thatcher's assertion, the greater amount of money in the economy comes from the government, with a small amount coming from foreign earnings) and prevent the already wealthy from amassing even more.

Instead, it pretends that there is a finite amount of money available and allows the wealthy to take, and hold onto, most of it.

Overcrowding is not our problem, very poor economics is.

How many potholes need filling? 😆

I don't think it's as simple as that! It's naive to think that groups of immigrants will simply fill potholes. It requires machinery, equipment, materials, training, supervision, planning, risk assessments, road closure applications etc. Local authorities do NOT have the finances to mobilise something like this. It's down to money, or lack of it, again.
Anyway, machinery is quickly replacing manual pothole repairs too in a fraction of the time.

The immigrants who have already come here and have been granted residence etc aren't the issue. They are contributing to the country by working and paying their way. (I was one such, for 7 years in France). If they then fall by hard times, they will be supported. No emotions towards them either way. That's normal. The numbers are proportionate, even if they increase they will help care for our aging population.
No emotions either about how immigration evolved in the past, that's how it was then.

It's the thousands who are now just hanging around inactive and still arriving, who drain the coffers who cause others a feeling of frustration. It's not their fault they aren't allowed to work, but neither is it anyone's fault to feel this frustration. This is a rational reaction.

Thanks for that Maizie.

You'll probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a significant amount of GDP is inhabitants buying and selling from and to each other - in other words, passing the money and wealth around (and being taxed on the way).

If 100 people lived in the UK, they'd presumably find some way of trading, so that the person who can produce x,y or z would do it most efficiently and sell the surplus to others. If everybody worked, they could possibly sustain themselves.

Multiply that number a few million times and essentially that's what people are still doing. Some work is deemed to be worth more than others, some people can't (or won't work) and wealthy tends to trickle upwards, but the wealth of individuals doesn't depend on the number of people in the economy. There is no evidence that immigrants don't pull their weight.

escaped If it's down to finances, how much would be saved? Not only would useful work be done, which would benefit everybody, but asylum seekers would be given work for "idle hands", so less hanging around on street corners terrifying the fearful natives.