Post-exit immigration policy - what should it be?

[Spymaster]

I've yet to earn 26k in my life. How do you get such a job without even being in the country?

By being offered a job which pays that. Non-EU citizens have de facto been in that boat for many years anyway.

 

[TopCat]

What's most dissapointing is that we have a racist Tory government, not what order they do shit in.

*Excuse curtness, not in a good mood today

What really disappoints is how we got here, and that it was entirely avoidable.

 

[TopCat]

Most likely outcome: your industry will suddenly have a very high incidence of "illegal" immigrants from E. Europe, who will not be in a position to defend themselves in terms of either wages or health and safety. And the people who run your industry will also use this to attack your wages and conditions.

Sorry, I don't make the rules.

The lump has largely disappeared.

 

[Pickman's model]

if there ever is a labour government again it will be interesting if they dare change this policy.

or indeed if they dare implement it

 

[ska invita]

Well that may be the case but this isn't an example of it. This is inevitable policy based on stated aims which a huge chunk of the electorate voted for.

CANZUK wet dreams of white purity aside above all its a class thing - door closed to working class/people who cant walk into a 26k job. Migration an option for those who can afford it or have the necessary benefits. Of course those class/'point' differences intersects with race too

 

[editor]

From the Guardian:

Britain is to close its borders to unskilled workers and those who can’t speak English as part of a fundamental overhaul of immigration laws that will end the era of cheap EU labour in factories, warehouses, hotels and restaurants.

Unveiling its Australian-style points system on Wednesday, the government will say it is grasping a unique opportunity to take “full control” of British borders “for the first time in decades” and eliminate the “distortion” caused by EU freedom of movement.

But industry leaders immediately accused the government of an assault on the economy warning of “disastrous” consequences with job losses and closures in factories and the high street.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats also condemned the plans while Unison, which represents health workers said they “spell absolute disaster for the care sector”.

UK to close door to non-English speakers and unskilled workers

Government plans to take ‘full control’ of borders a disaster for economy and jobs, say industry leaders and Labour

www.theguardian.com

 

[SpackleFrog]

That's also a reality.

What most disappoints me is that the opposition from Labour and the SNP - if the debate on newsnight last night is in any way representative of their respective positions - takes as its starting point the demands and needs of some of the most exploitative employers in the UK Economy. If your idea to build a mass campaign against the Tory plans is to place at its centre a defence of the pay, employment practises and methods of the care sector or hotel chains then you are going towards a dead end fast.

How about the reintroduction of tripartite wages boards for these parts of the economy with a remit to also look at demand, skills, apprenticeships, shortages and pay. How about full trade union rights for these sectors? How about a plan to eradicate youth unemployment based on guaranteed standards? How about detailed mapping of demand and the likely terrain of the UK economy over say, the next 40 years and taking it from there?

If the answer is 'we don't need to worry about the detail because we want free movement - and this is the political priority we will organise around and seek to enter government on' - then we might as well sit back and let the Tories get on with it.

Yeah, that's my impression as well - a thousand facepalms hearing Diane Abbot on Radio 4 talking about how this would be bad for industries which rely on cheap migrant labour.

Part of the problem I think for Labour is that it's been a very long time since they've had to think about immigration policy - for decades now their position has basically be to defend the EU and therefore EU free movement, and largely go with the flow on non EU migration as a trade off. Generally their message has always veered between "We know you might not like the EU but immigration is good for the economy" and "We know you might not like immigration but EU membership is good for the economy."

The classic Guardian/left liberal line for a really long time has been that immigrants make a 'net contribution' to the UK economy ie they work for less and they're less likely to claim benefits, which is about as racist a position as it's possible to have when you're actively promoting this net contribution as a good thing.

The left - whoever you consider them to be - now does need to know what it thinks about immigration. I'm sceptical about points based systems but I haven't yet worked out what I think I want to see in its place.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well that may be the case but this isn't an example of it. This is inevitable policy based on stated aims which a huge chunk of the electorate voted for.

it wasn't an inevitable product of the election
even in terms of the election, only a minority of people who voted voted for it
and the tory party received the votes of a scanty 28% of the electorate as a whole
more people didn't consider any party worth voting for than voted tory

 

[treelover]

That's also a reality.

What most disappoints me is that the opposition from Labour and the SNP - if the debate on newsnight last night is in any way representative of their respective positions - takes as its starting point the demands and needs of some of the most exploitative employers in the UK Economy. If your idea to build a mass campaign against the Tory plans is to place at its centre a defence of the pay, employment practises and methods of the care sector or hotel chains then you are going towards a dead end fast.

How about the reintroduction of tripartite wages boards for these parts of the economy with a remit to also look at demand, skills, apprenticeships, shortages and pay. How about full trade union rights for these sectors? How about a plan to eradicate youth unemployment based on guaranteed standards? How about detailed mapping of demand and the likely terrain of the UK economy over say, the next 40 years and taking it from there?

If the answer is 'we don't need to worry about the detail because we want free movement - and this is the political priority we will organise around and seek to enter government on' - then we might as well sit back and let the Tories get on with it.

interesting that your post and on wider media is one of the few that looks at changing things for the best for people here, not only training, etc, but as Philosophical notes, there is going to be maybe the biggest assault on the unemployed, disabled, sick , maybe some retired, maybe ever, will there be opposition to that, where will it come from, as i have noted, its not there at the moment.

 

[Spymaster]

CANZUK wet dreams of white purity aside above all its a class thing - door closed to working class/people who cant walk into a 26k job. Migration an option for those who can afford it or have the necessary benefits. Of course those class/'point' differences intersects with race too

Well you can lever a class/race argument into any immigration policy that isn't open borders, but again, this only changes things for EU citizens. The door you mention has been tightly closed to everyone else for many, many years. It hasn't just happened. Non-EU citizens have long had to jump through multiple hoops, achieve visa sponsorship from registered companies who have to prove that they can't find suitable EU candidates, etc., etc., ... and those jobs are likely to be higher paying ones. Visas haven't been issued to most non-EU citizens without family connections or other qualifications to come here to work in bars or construction etc., for over 30 years. Australians and Kiwis were an exception for a while with the reciprocal arrangements but that's gone now.

CANZUK isn't government policy, is full of massive holes, and will never happen.

 

[captainmission]

if there ever is a labour government again it will be interesting if they dare change this policy.

The bulk of what the Tories have announced is basically a minor tweak to the existing Tier 2 General Work Visa ( a point based system introduced by Labour in 2008). The tier 2 visa also had a English language requirement, requirement for a sponsor, requirement of minimum level of earnings. The main difference is the new policy lowers the earning requirement for workers occupations with shortages. The same policy outcome could be have been achieved by existing tier 2 programme.

Why would labour not agree with a policy that's nearly identical to one they introduced in 2008, but slight more favourable to certain lower paid worker?

 

[Spymaster]

The bulk of what the Tories have announced is basically a minor tweak to the existing Tier 2 General Work Visa ( a point based system introduced by Labour in 2008). The tier 2 visa also had a English language requirement, requirement for a sponsor, requirement of minimum level of earnings. The main difference is the new policy lowers the earning requirement for workers occupations with shortages. The same policy outcome could be have been achieved by existing tier 2 programme.

Precisely. Except now it will apply to EU citizens also.

 

[Pickman's model]

interesting that your post and on wider media is one of the few that looks at changing things for the best for people here, not only training, etc, but as Philosophical notes, there is going to be maybe the biggest assault on the unemployed, disabled, sick , maybe some retired, maybe ever, will there be opposition to that, where will it come from, as i have noted, its not there at the moment.

it won't come for you, you'll be too busy wondering why people aren't busy allying themselves with you

 

[captainmission]

So part of the policy paper that's not got much coverage in this

t is also important to recognise that in some higher paid occupations, the ‘going rate’ will be above the general salary threshold. Migrants will still be awarded points for holding a relevant PhD or if the occupation is in shortage, which they will be able to trade against a salary lower than the ‘going rate’: 10% lower if they have a relevant PhD in a non-STEM subject; 20% lower if they have a relevant PhD in a STEM subject; or 20% lower if the occupation is designated in shortage by the MAC. In line with the MAC’s advice, there will continue to be reduced salary requirements for new entrants to the labour market.

Allowing employer to pay below the going rate by 20% in shortage occupations. You'd hope Labour would attack on this basis rather than walking in to the trap of lining up behind the CBI and care home sector in support of keeping wages low.

 

[captainmission]

Part of the problem I think for Labour is that it's been a very long time since they've had to think about immigration policy - for decades now their position has basically be to defend the EU and therefore EU free movement, and largely go with the flow on non EU migration as a trade off. Generally their message has always veered between "We know you might not like the EU but immigration is good for the economy" and "We know you might not like immigration but EU membership is good for the economy."

The classic Guardian/left liberal line for a really long time has been that immigrants make a 'net contribution' to the UK economy ie they work for less and they're less likely to claim benefits, which is about as racist a position as it's possible to have when you're actively promoting this net contribution as a good thing.

The most frustrating part about line of argument is that leads directly to policies like the Tories are introducing. If the value of a migrant is their economic contribution surely it makes sense to design a system that encourages those that contribute most and excludes those that contribute less?

 

[treelover]

Patel is part of the group that wrote "Britannia unchained". A memorable quote that explains her words today :

"The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music."

She made her intentions clear here, a purge is coming, where will the opposition come from?

 

[treelover]

The most frustrating part about line of argument is that leads directly to policies like the Tories are introducing. If the value of a migrant is their economic contribution surely it makes sense to design a system that encourages those that contribute most and excludes those that contribute less?

The liberal left seems to confuse, obsfucate, on migration, Jonathan Portes is one of the key players there

He also thought closing down the mines was a good thing.

there are also lots of posts across social media literally mourning the loss of 'cheap labour'.

 

[tommers]

Imagine allowing your children to occasionally think about things other than their utility to the economy. Crazy.

 

[smokedout]

After working for 44 years straight and not claiming I am retired now living off my pension.
But Priti Patel sees me as an 'economically inactive' cunt who should do the fruit picking jobs.
Patel thinks there are eight and a half million cunts like me out there, licking her smirking lips at the exploitation possibilities.
Retirement age of 85 coming soon.

Of the eight and half million people who are economically inactive, over 2 million are students, just under another 2 million are stay at home parents or carers, over a million have taken early retirement and over 2 million are long term sick. A large chunk of the rest are probably rich enough not to work, or have taken a career break of some sort. According to the ONS just 1.87m people who are economically inactive currently say they want a job, although they are not currently looking for one and able to take up full time work immediately otherwise they would be included as unemployed rather than economically inactive. So probably students wanting some part time work, things like that.

So it appears that some form of coercion may be necessary to moblise this workforce. Assuming they're not planning to round people up at gun point then the only groups on which coercion can be applied are long term sick/disabled claimants and parents who may be on some form of benefit. Looks like we might be heading towards yet more punitive social security reforms.

 

[treelover]

I wonder when the next big benefit scrounger 'scandal ' will hit the headlines, including on the BBC,

poster campaign too i expect.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wonder when the next big benefit scrounger 'scandal ' will hit the headlines, including on the BBC,

poster campaign too i expect.

i am glad you think the bbc will report it

glad. but surprised.

 

[treelover]

Eh, the BBC has been appalling on its coverage of the welfare reforms.

 

[TopCat]

From the Guardian:

UK to close door to non-English speakers and unskilled workers

Government plans to take ‘full control’ of borders a disaster for economy and jobs, say industry leaders and Labour

www.theguardian.com

What do you think about this and why?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Of the eight and half million people who are economically inactive, over 2 million are students, just under another 2 million are stay at home parents or carers, over a million have taken early retirement and over 2 million are long term sick. A large chunk of the rest are probably rich enough not to work, or have taken a career break of some sort. According to the ONS just 1.87m people who are economically inactive currently say they want a job, although they are not currently looking for one and able to take up full time work immediately otherwise they would be included as unemployed rather than economically inactive. So probably students wanting some part time work, things like that.

So it appears that some form of coercion may be necessary to moblise this workforce. Assuming they're not planning to round people up at gun point then the only groups on which coercion can be applied are long term sick/disabled claimants and parents who may be on some form of benefit. Looks like we might be heading towards yet more punitive social security reforms.

Take your 1.87M economically inactive people, add people trapped in low paid part time work, add in zero hours contract workers, add in those in precarious work, add in school leavers looking for a job and a life - you can see already who might want a job that is better paid and had better conditions because labour has suddenly become more scarce. I also know a lot of retired workers eeking out a living after being laid off early who would love a job if it paid decently.

Driving up pay, asserting trade union rights, the campaign for a return to proper apprenticeships, better terms and conditions of service - all can become part of the debate about what sort of economy we want post Brexit. All are demands that play well in the 'red wall'.

None of this will come without struggle, but then it never has. But surely the starting point is the labour movement advancing the type of argument I made above rather than weeping tears of pity for Marriott and G4S Bosses and their fears that they might need to offer better pay to get and retain workers?

And, of course, one of the best protections we have against a campaign of coercion and dividing people up into 'strivers or skivers' is a response to the Tory plans that wins wide POPULAR support for the type of programme outlined. Precisely what much of the left response to date does not do.

 

[The39thStep]

Nearly got knocked over in the rush from trade union leaders to seize the opportunity to recruit and organise in these industries plagued with low pay and shite conditions.

 

[editor]

What do you think about this and why?

I pretty much agree with the various union's take on it. I think it's going to cause real problems for small businesses, cafes, pubs and some areas of healthcare. The Tories are already doing their best to destroy the NHS, but perhaps you might explain how it'll be improved under Brexit?

And seeing as you asked me: what do you think about what I posted and why?

More here: No visas for low-skilled workers, government says

 

[smokedout]

Take your 1.87M economically inactive people, add people trapped in low paid part time work, add in zero hours contract workers, add in those in precarious work, add in school leavers looking for a job and a life - you can see already who might want a job that is better paid and had better conditions because labour has suddenly become more scarce. I also know a lot of retired workers eeking out a living after being laid off early who would love a job if it paid decently.

Driving up pay, asserting trade union rights, the campaign for a return to proper apprenticeships, better terms and conditions of service - all can become part of the debate about what sort of economy we want post Brexit. All are demands that play well in the 'red wall'.

None of this will come without struggle, but then it never has. But surely the starting point is the labour movement advancing the type of argument I made above rather than weeping tears of pity for Marriott and G4S Bosses and their fears that they might need to offer better pay to get and retain workers?

And, of course, one of the best protections we have against a campaign of coercion and dividing people up into 'strivers or skivers' is a response to the Tory plans that wins wide POPULAR support for the type of programme outlined. Precisely what much of the left response to date does not do.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree, but it will be a struggle, and as things stand unfortunately the most likely outcome seems to me to be no real increase in wages or improvement in working conditions and a coercive programme to force people into shit jobs that they don't want to do. But I think you're right, there is as space opening up for those demands to be made, how successful that will be remains to be seen.

 

[brogdale]

Take your 1.87M economically inactive people, add people trapped in low paid part time work, add in zero hours contract workers, add in those in precarious work, add in school leavers looking for a job and a life - you can see already who might want a job that is better paid and had better conditions because labour has suddenly become more scarce. I also know a lot of retired workers eeking out a living after being laid off early who would love a job if it paid decently.

Driving up pay, asserting trade union rights, the campaign for a return to proper apprenticeships, better terms and conditions of service - all can become part of the debate about what sort of economy we want post Brexit. All are demands that play well in the 'red wall'.

None of this will come without struggle, but then it never has. But surely the starting point is the labour movement advancing the type of argument I made above rather than weeping tears of pity for Marriott and G4S Bosses and their fears that they might need to offer better pay to get and retain workers?

And, of course, one of the best protections we have against a campaign of coercion and dividing people up into 'strivers or skivers' is a response to the Tory plans that wins wide POPULAR support for the type of programme outlined. Precisely what much of the left response to date does not do.

As it happens, you've just reminded me of the day I left the NUT; they were agonising over how the shortage of teachers the state had identified might be filled.

 

[editor]

Here's 'eight ways new laws will affect industry'. Makes me wonder about all of the EU friends I wouldn't have if this had come in 5 years ago. Almost all of then wouldn't get in now.

Home Secretary Priti Patel says companies need to train more British workers to fill vacancies.

She says eight million 16 to 64-year-olds are "economically inactive".

But many of these are students, carers or long-term sick - it is not a guaranteed pool of available labour

Most people employed by the adult social care sector are low-paid workers providing daily help to older and disabled adults in care homes and the community.

And foreign nationals currently make up a sixth of the 840,000 care workers in England.

But under the new system, foreign nationals applying to work in the UK care sector seem certain to fall well short of the 70 points required.

People wanting to come to the UK to work in shops and cafes are likely to find it difficult to get a visa in the future.

Anyone already here working in retail jobs will be able to stay and apply for settled status.

But those wanting to come to the UK after the end of the transition period will need an offer of a "skilled" job paying more than £25,600.

Immigration: Eight ways new laws will affect industry

The government will introduce a "points-based" post-Brexit immigration system - but what will be the impact?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[treelover]

British turnips for British people!
Can't wait until jobseekers sent to fields to pick up vegetables. Otherwise, suspension from benefits. Please remember, will of da people

This is what is posted by some remainers on social media