Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 19 Sep 2014 01:52:57 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at John Mc I agree with a cap and as an ex employer of an Indian National with 2 degrees, both taught in English in India, I feel that it is right to only allow the best to stay. Why did I employ her, because of her past experience in the Middle East, her ability to speak several dialects which helped my communicate and recruit degree qualified engineers for my business. Why did I not recruit UK engineers, there were none available. The root of highly qualified personell into the UK is only because we encourage useless degrees, a degree in media and communications or politics is not going to build or design objects that the country can licence and sell effectively. If we had good routes for young UK based persons to be encouraged into sciences and engineering then we would not need to recruit from outside. I am too old now to emigrate to Canada or New Zealand etc but I would be subject to scrutiny just the same as immigrants are in the UK. I accept this easily having worked in the Middle & Far East, no qualifications, not enough salary, no method of supporting oneself for a period, I have 'suffered' to use a word commonly abused by applicants, under these criteria.I now live in Germany where once again I have been selected because of my skills and ability to speak the language. This is common across the world so to use excuses as listed in the article is beyond ridiculous. The Cambridge PhD applicant, well I blame the University, it is charging huge fees and does not value the employee. It is the same in science and engineering everywhere, salaries are low, much less than your MP in most cases. Raise the salary and the candidate would qualify, easy.My employee in the UK was scrutinised every year, her bank checked and mine to see if she was paid her salary, she got no state help for housing and if became unemployed had a 28 day leave notice administered, in fact I had to inform the home office if she was off sick and had not called in for a week. She was an easy target to expel but the illegals get arreszed and told to report every week without expulsion. Ridiculous.We need bright people, I would prefer it was all UK based and I will accept anyone who has the right training, if the past and present governments do not encourage science and engineering then I am forced to take another route and that is immigration and all my candidates will be paid the correct amount to allow them to gain the points.It is the universities problem, if you want to keep something then pay for it or lose it. Wed 30 Mar 2011 05:46:27 GMT+1 Marc MeWurdz I find it hard to believe were still allowing these immigrants in when we should be getting rid of them, there is a growing hatred on the streets with unemployment and housing being massive problems the government ignores.You only have to look at France and the sudden rise of the National Front to see what is going to happen there and what will happen here,The break-away so called anarchists at the protests in London are the first step on the very short ladder to cleansing the UK. Tue 29 Mar 2011 18:57:56 GMT+1 Adira It is ridiculous that Britain treats subjects of the commonwealth as foreigners when we all share the same language and have political systems based directly on the British system and still retain the Queen as our head of state. Years ago Commonwealth citizens were allowed to travel and settle freely within the other countries that were members of the British Commonwealth. Now that Britain is in the E.U. though, immigrants from E.U. countries are prioritized. This seems unfair to me. Citizens from Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I’ve met while working in the UK speak English as a native language, so they are better placed to integrate well in UK jobs and not be drains on the welfare system. I know some British people are afraid that if they let all the people from the Commonwealth in again, England would be overrun with unskilled workers with poor English skills. The simple way to combat this is to institute spoken and written English tests for Commonwealth subjects and to see if their skills are ones that are required in England or not. Immigrants from poor Commonwealth English speaking countries would at least be better placed than immigrants from poor European countries like Poland, because knowing the language would make it easier for them to get work. The current points based system that is imposed on immigrants from the Commonwealth takes off 5 points for being over the age of 30 which I think is ridiculous. Most people I know are most productive in their working lives between 30 and 50 and now that people are living longer lives, this restriction should be changed. Also, the current working holidaymaker/youth mobility scheme/Tier 5 visa scheme makes no differentiation between workers from Japan, the U.S. and workers from Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. We are all only allowed to stay for two years. Even if we can get employment beyond that time, the current system makes it either expensive, prohibitive or impossible for employers to grant visa extensions. Youth mobility scheme workers are not allowed visa extensions no matter what the circumstances. Fri 18 Mar 2011 23:25:44 GMT+1 Les Small IT Company (5 people) in Leith, Edinburgh works hard, wins orders (including from Government) and advertises for Masters Graduates with 1st or 2.1 at BSc at the University of Edinburgh. 40 odd applicants, competitive interviews - hires the best - 3 of the people hired are Pakistani on post study work Visas. No candidates at second interview were UK Nationals. To UK national applicants had the necesssary qualifications or experience.Come the new government, they are refused the Tier 2 Visas required when the post study work visa expire. Top range people, hired from a top range university in a highly technical subject.A small company (now 14 people) will now loose half its trained work force. There is no appeal allowed. If Scotland has declining population and skill shortages, looks like thew ConDems are planning to make it much worse. Presumably I (the owner) am meant to open an office in more enlightened territory. Thu 25 Nov 2010 13:18:09 GMT+1 kevthebrit This post has been Removed Fri 15 Oct 2010 16:28:22 GMT+1 nautonier # 34. At 11:55am on 11 Oct 2010, nautonier wrote:'This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.'......................But 'they' don't say why it was considered to 'break the house rules' ... so I'm none the wiser for being 'censored'.The rules are obviously to be understood only by those who control and censor them ... I don't call that accountable as all UK publicly funded bodies should be. Tue 12 Oct 2010 16:32:07 GMT+1 Call_Me_Col There is an easy way to handle students / people who come in on work visas.- Students can have part time work (& holiday jobs), pay tax, get medical treatment etc.- For workers, no medical cover apart from basic emergency until you are paying NI and have built up credit (or have medical insurance).- For workers, you lose your job, your employer is responsible for sending you home.- For Students, you drop out / fail the course, your university is responsible for sending you home.- Set standards for who we will accept (i.e. points system, sponsors, qualifications etc...)- Take finger prints / DNA on entry and make it mandatory to register an address.- Any serious illegal acts or attempting to disappear means automatic loss of status / removal to country of birth.- When you work / study permit runs out you leave. (an application to become a UK citizen can be made and will be judged accordings to the normal rules).- Employee / university liable for any costs associated with removal of those who break the rules.There is an easy way to handle prospective immigrants.- Only direct family allowed in, i.e. spouse, children (under 21, if no family of their own).- Set standards for who we will accept as an immigrant (i.e. points system, ecomonic needs, grandfather rights).- Take finger prints / DNA on entry and make it mandatory to register an address.- Any serious illegal acts or attempting to disappear means automatic loss of immigrant status / removal to country of birth.- Set limits, to be regularly reviewed depending on state of the economy, growth etc. why take in more people when the economy is shrinking.There is an easy way to handle Asylum seekers.- Take finger prints / DNA on entry- Track movements- Any illegal acts or attempting to disappear means automatic removal to country of birth (if safe, if not to any other country which will have them, if none will, then long term incarceration)- Once the need for asylum is gone, repatriation. No appeal to stay.- you can work, pay tax, get medical treatment, benefits etc.There is an easy way to deal with EU / Commonwealth migrants.- No unemployement benefits / tax credits etc. unless you have paid the equivalent of NI somewhere in Europe / Commonwealth (and we have a recprocal agreements. no medical cover apart from basic emergency until you are paying NI and have built up credit- Illegal acts mean prison time followed by removal to country of birth, plus as we'd have your DNA / finger prints, loss of right to access in the future.Illegal immigrants- Illegal act on entry means automatic removal to country of birth, plus as we'd have your DNA / finger prints, loss of right to access in the future.- No right to request asylum as you broke the law coming in.And yes, I'd happily provide finger prints / DNA to any country I visited (until it becomes possible to duplicate them that is).And yes, I'd expect to pay for any crime I perpetrated in any country I visisted and to be expelled from it once the time had been served (unless of course I'd been shot, hung, stoned etc....)Fair with those who follow and respect our rules. Firm with those who break them. Mon 11 Oct 2010 15:05:03 GMT+1 nautonier 34.I'm still being censored here ... it seems that some are very sensitive to criticism ... but you know what they say, 'if you can't stand the heat ... then its best to get out of the kitchen'.How about the BBC write something to stimulate British school children and students to be the Nobel prize winners of today and tomorrow? Mon 11 Oct 2010 11:37:03 GMT+1 nautonier This post has been Removed Mon 11 Oct 2010 10:55:00 GMT+1 GeoffWard Hi, stanilic. Re: 32 etc. Always like your postings on the topic. It helps to have some inside experience.Yes, I am still waiting for even-handedness wrt immigration and emigration; both need considering in conjunction as components of migration. Patently some people on this site fail to understand that nett migration is just a residual with many horror-stories hidden under the term. Gordon Brown tried to pull this one in his latter weeks.You and I continue to cry in the wilderness about the lack of openness with the way policies and practices (and problems and outcomes) mesh together with all the catagories of peoples migrating in & out of the UK & its cities & regions. My opinion is that they all need managing in harmony, not in seperate 'ministries'; alternatively, the datasets need to be seamlessly interrogatable & modifiable between ministries. It probably has the same intractability as the National Health database!Wrt your comment on the Learn the Language dimension of immigration - I am really struggling to learn enough Brazilian Portuguese to perhaps qualify as a full citizen (or even do the extensive Brazilian Driving Test!). At this rate I may even have to re-migrate full-time! Sun 10 Oct 2010 22:02:26 GMT+1 stanilic 27 GeoffWardThe fact that there are four categories of candidate that falls under the blanket term of immigrant seems to me to be the problem.Three of these categories namely, the asylum seeker, the work permitee and the EU worker are not what I would consider immigrants. They are all temporary residents and need to be managed as such. Why they even come under the term `immigration' puzzles me.This causes me to wonder at the competence of the British state in managing such seemingly diverse matters under one organisational umbrella. Work permits could be managed by the DTI or whatever it is called these days, asylum-seekers under a new version of the old Aliens Act and EU workers are just treated the same as UK workers since we are in the Single Market. Proper immigrants would be expected to eventually apply for Uk citizenship after a defined period. If they don't then their status needs to be reviewed. These are all simple bureaucratic processes which should be easily managed. Why it is all so difficult is beyond me.The only unifying consideration is that they should all be subject to rules defining linguistic skills in English. The same should apply to British residents seeking to live in Spain where a competence in Spanish should be de rigeur in my view. Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:22:09 GMT+1 nautonier 30.Come on Moderators this is biased censorship.. I've written nothing wrong except from the BBC's point of view in pointing out that in my opinion, the BBC reporting here is 'rubbish'Oh yes and that the BBC should be 'sold off' ... Britain needs the money to send British students to University Sun 10 Oct 2010 10:41:30 GMT+1 nautonier This post has been Removed Sun 10 Oct 2010 10:25:51 GMT+1 PaulRM #27FOI, contrary to T Blairs handwringing hostility, is essential to an effective and open democracy. The lack of it is a more probable explanation why the electorate have been less and less inclined to vote, let alone involve themselves in the political process as a whole. With it the ordinary citizen has the ability to more fully understand the problems the government faces, the range of options available, and the consequences of implementing them. In that context, it demystifies political hot potatoes like immigration, and limits the ability of politicians to spin the hidden data any way they wish. To that end, I agree that a full and open disclosure along the lines you mention seems a very good starting point in a discussion of how a coherent immigration policy can be developed. However, the conditions of our membership of the EU are not realistically up for renegotiation - were that not the case, I am pretty sure DC & WH would have put it very near the top of their European to-do list. Plus, the stance of the EU over the French deportation of a substantial number of their Roma people makes the likelihood of any change in the principle of freeedom of movement within the EU an impossibility. Sat 09 Oct 2010 20:13:31 GMT+1 grainsofsand devising the kind of limit that will bring net migration below 100,000 a year remains a huge challenge.------------------------------------------------------------------------What utter tosh. It's really very simple,don't let any one in to the country,except the most gifted. Sat 09 Oct 2010 19:22:10 GMT+1 GeoffWard ."... The political problem has been the consistent failure to manage these different criteria ('Categories' - see my 7, 8, 18) within their relevant contexts." (stanilic, @ 20)."We, as a country, are still not having a discussion of what immigration means to us at a personal, local and governmental level. Instead the subject is relegated to the margins, typically the province of the BNP etc, and it does not take a stretch to imagine in what terms." (PaulRM, @ 26)..............................Colleagues,. these are both good and pertinent postings - laying out the problems.Where they are less good is in offering/debating solutions..Again, I refer to my postings on this blog (7,8, (&18)) where I offer routes to solutions without being 'partisan' or proscriptive/prescriptive..Both stanilic and PaulRM are, imo, guilty of underplaying the Free-Movement issue within the expanded EU. This element should be adressed effectively as policy and practice *subject to re-negotiation* where deemed necessary, within the holistic discussion of Migration (etc) partitioned by Category..Geoff. Sat 09 Oct 2010 16:22:34 GMT+1 PaulRM We, as a country, are still not having a discussion of what immigration means to us at a personal, local and governmental level. Instead the subject is relegated to the margins, typically the province of the BNP etc, and it does not take a stretch to imagine in what terms.Immigration can add benefit to the country, as a whole, when properly managed, and augment limited national resources. However, Labour made the mistake of keeping schtum, not because they were practising some weird form of ethnic realignmnet of the population, but because they wanted to avoid the type of xenophobic accusation, much favoured by the Daily Mail, that foreigners are taking all our jobs or having it easy by living off the largesse of indigenous taxpayers. The real mistake lay with the government in failing to make their case to the electorate, and explaining just how the process would (or may be that should be "could"?) work. That, in turn, resulted in a failure to take account of the increase in resources and services needed in those locales most affected by population changes, and the potential for ghettoisation in a number of communities. So, by avoiding all public discussion of immigration and its potential consequences, the genuine issues that it threw up were officially "not seen" - leaving problems to fester and become entrenched, and in turn swell until they became visible for all to see. Thus a new recipe for electoral embarrassment was created, adding to those already in play, guaranteeing Labour would be forced onto the back foot. Any defence of the government's actions being seen as self serving, and potential solutions as "too little, too late". Cue the election, and the Tories did what the Tories do best - exploit peoples worries by spreading fear and despair that all is lost (a very effective tactic in light of the present global predicament); produce, like a rabbit out of a hat, a bunch of meaningless soundbites meant to show that the Tory party is reborn as the new, improved, shiny and unblemished party of the people, with a leader who, all but messianically, says "I have seen the Big Society, follow me, and I will show you the way"; identify suitable minorities as the cause of all our present misfortunes - chief characteristics being weak, vulnerable, dispossessed, and having no collective voice ; parade image of said minorities (villains) in full grotesquery on the pantomime stage of public opinion; incite much extravagant hissing and booing as each group of miscreants is paraded for our collective vilification; sit back and wait until the mixture comes to a combustible boil; serve with side orders of gross indignation and self-righteousness.The Tories, having assumed the reins of power, have little regard or interest in the vast majority of the people who voted for them - in the name of a smaller state, the mantra is "let the little people do what the little people do". In the area of immigration they have arbitratily created a "cap" that is all but meaningless, and ultimately will do more harm than good. Worst of all, by claiming the "immigration job is done", the subject has effectively been closed for discussion - but the problem remains, and is not going away anytime soon. So the sin of omission that was Labour's, is now the sin of wilful ignorance on the part of the Tories.The fourth estate, whose professed role is to, amongst other things, hold the executive to account, is more exercised over the plight of a participant in a populist TV show, than the loss of critical scientific expertise, highlighted above, to the nations pool of knowledge. The Tory press is more than content to sing from the Tory Central Office hymn sheet, and woe betide any media outlet that fails to adopt the required position - for surely fire and brimstone shall be brought down upon their heads. The end result is a stream of meaningless pap that is supposed to pass for political anlaysis and comment, plus a heavy dose of populist nonesense designed to keep the plebs distracted, passive, and happy.Roll on Brave New World. Sat 09 Oct 2010 13:16:52 GMT+1 tykejim #24 KennethM - you really can't have 'a high level of immigration' of 'high level academics'; there just aren't enough of them in the first place. And you miss the point that at the top level of research you are only interested in the 'best', not where they come from. Fri 08 Oct 2010 20:19:54 GMT+1 KennethM #23 jimbrantI am surprised of the little understanding there is in the affect of immigration on our society.Steady and modest immigration in my view is good as it keeps our society vibrant and stronger. However, a high level of immigration over a relatively short period – whether the immigrants are high level academics or anybody else – tends to distort our culture.When a critical mass of any given groups of immigrants (all from a similar culture of location) is achieved the result is self contained cultural groups rather than any meaningful integration. We are left with multiple cultures in parallel.The immigration debate tends to be restricted to economical outcomes and not to the affect on real lives. Financial concerns, although very important and covering a wide range, do not represent the whole story.I think that concentrated levels of high immigration are leaving us less happy. Fri 08 Oct 2010 19:45:24 GMT+1 tykejim I am surprised that there is apparently so little understanding of the reason why Cambridge would have wanted to recruit Dr Jain, and not make do with one of the available, but not as good, UK postdoc applicants. If you are Cambridge, recently recognised as the best university in the world, or one of the other top-class research universites you are interested in recruiting only the best candidate for a research post. While in business, or elsewhere in the HE sector, it is possible to think in terms of having a basic ability to 'do the job', that just doesn't cut the mustard when you are trying to be the (or even one of the) world best in research. You wouldn't expect ManU to settle for homegrown talent if a world class overseas player was available; and neither would Cambridge.I used to have difficulty in persuading the Home Office of this when trying to get work permits on behalf of one the other leading UK universities, but we usually managed it in the end, because there was some flexibility in the system. That flexibilty seems absent now, and the country will suffer for it. Fri 08 Oct 2010 19:24:20 GMT+1 KennethM Labour’s immigration expansion was ‘quiet’ with the connivance of the BBC. Fri 08 Oct 2010 19:09:29 GMT+1 soton1990 Whilst I agree that the rules need to be flexible enough to allow skilled individuals such as Dr Jain into the country, I have little sympathy for Gamu Nhengu. Just because you've been on X-factor, it does not excuse you from the rules or give you a right to stay in this country. Let's face it, had it not been for a television programme, most people wouldn't care. Do these same people protesting at the deportation of Gamu Nhengu worry about the forgotten and lonely elderly people in their community? Do they take active steps to help them?When examining whether or not someone should be allowed to live in this country, we need to be objective and not get drawn in by someone's personal issues. Fri 08 Oct 2010 13:46:01 GMT+1 stanilic In the old days where I would much rather go and live than today, there was a clear differentiation between a work permit and immigration. Now it would seem there is no difference. A work permit can be time and job/task limited so if the recipient fails to leave at the end of the defined term, their employer can be fined heavily and the individual arrested, detained and deported for overstaying. This can be applied to students as well. The cost of managing this process should be down to the institution bringing the recruit into the country.Immigration is someone choosing to leave one country to live in another, presumably with the intention of taking up residence and becoming a citizen. This is wholly different from someone coming here temporarily. This should be easily controllable as these people are not expected to leave but can be constrained from taking welfare benefits or free hospital treatment until sufficient credits are established. Then there are the Asylum Seekers which pose a different issue. The much vaunted British tradition of granting asylum to the oppressed was based on the principle that the oppressed will at some time return to their newly liberated homeland but in the interim will be allowed to work. They used to be required to register with the police. It is the modern failure to allow them to work which has messed this up as they quickly become recruits to the legion of the entitled.The only exception to these definitions is with EU migration which is the consequence of the single market which benefits all European citizens, British or otherwise, in one way or another.The political problem has been the consistent failure to manage these different criteria within their relevant contexts. Fri 08 Oct 2010 08:34:11 GMT+1 Aneeta Trikk Well whatever the infection which passed from Thatcher to Major to Blair to Brown, it is pretty invincible and contagious. With both brain cells dead what are our Coalition to do than claim victory?And the US have been importing 'brains' for a very long time; didn't Harry Kroto cut his teeth in Sussex? Talent isn't diminished wherever it goes apparently. On the other hand mediocrity has a habit of being glorified when being serviced in Oxford or Cambridge.... or even Bombay or Sussex perhaps? Fri 08 Oct 2010 06:29:12 GMT+1 GeoffWard Dear Tonyparksrun @ 10, this list of catagories is, to the best of my memory, a close approximation to the list in the Government's migration statistical report linked from Mark's earlier blog-posting on the topic..If the Government is already monitoring across the full range of categories, all we need is to place in the public domain the reports of effective action against targets for each category..Only then will we be in a position to (i) question the policies from a position of some knowledge, and (ii) call the Government to task if it fails in its own intentions..If the information is not offered to the electorate voluntarily, then the Freedom Of Information Act can be readily invoked, and Members lobbied accordingly. .This is not a 'one dimensional problem'; there are pluses as well as minuses in terms of the society we wish for ourselves - but the first two things we need are information and honesty. Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:58:50 GMT+1 cping500 Just to say that there is something interesting about the Dr.Jain story. He has been a post doc member of the Functional Inorganics and Hybrid Materials group since 2008 and is now listed with the group as a Visiting Student (University of Florida.) with an office number and a phone number. Given the fact that science is international I wonder how far in fact he is 'lost to Britain' His Facebook site says he is an expert caver! He gained his doctorate with the University of Georgia (USA) and on their site there is a video of him talking about his work.Did you check the story Mark? Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:19:59 GMT+1 PJohnston Mark Easton just loves immigration. This is evident in all of his articles which even touch on the topic. Even the articles he links to above as evidence of immigration policy criticism couch pressures on society created by mass immigration as problems which the host country is responsible for. Really? When is this partisan, politically motivated, nonobjective editor/presenter going to be replaced with someone who knows what the word impartiality actually means? Thu 07 Oct 2010 20:01:31 GMT+1 cping500 Just to say this is the official list of categories: You need to follow up the RULES for all of them to find out what is happening at the UK Boarder Agency site. (I think Mark should have done this for us before taking an individual case)For highly skilled workers, investors, entrepreneurs and recent graduates from UK universitiesYou do not need a job offer when you apply to enter or stay in the UK in these categories, but you will need to pass a points-based assessment.For skilled workersIf you have been offered a skilled job in the UK and your prospective employer is willing to sponsor you, you can apply to come or stay here to do that job.For temporary workersIf an employer in the UK is willing to sponsor you, or if you are a national of a country that participates in the youth mobility scheme, you may be eligible for temporary entry permitting various types of work here.Other categoriesYou can also apply to work in the UK as a domestic worker; as the sole representative of an overseas firm; or as a representative of an overseas newspaper, news agency or broadcasting organisation.For workers from the European Economic Area and SwitzerlandMost European nationals are free to come to and work in the UK - but if you are a national of a country that has recently joined the European Union, you may need to register with us or apply for our permission before you begin work.For workers and businesspersons from TurkeyTurkish citizens can benefit from a European agreement with Turkey if they want to establish themselves in business in the UK, or if they are already working here legally.For Commonwealth citizens with UK ancestryIf you are a Commonwealth citizen and at least one of your grandparents was born in the UK, you can apply to come here to work. Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:49:19 GMT+1 watriler More signs that things are unravelling for the coalition. This issue is at irritation level not outrage - for that we will have to wait until the deliberations of the CSR which may have enforcement issues for the new immigration policy? Thu 07 Oct 2010 19:03:25 GMT+1 vstrad Mark,A little unfair - I think you will find the points system that was applied to the unfortunate Dr Jain was devised by the last Government, not the current one. This will no doubt be reviewed as the new cap system is worked out. BTW, Cambridge is a very rich university and could have found an extra few £k for Dr Jain if they had wanted to. This suggests they found an equally talented substitute from elsewhere.BluesBerry @ 1.47pm: I disagree with you - and with St Vince. The Government has stated they will bring net migration down to "the thousands, not tens of thousands". This places an upper limit, as Mark says, of 100,000. As this is net migration, if 100,000 people leave Britain (in most years it is more) that allows 200,000 immigrants to enter the country. It is nonsense to suggest that this is an insufficient number to supply the specialist management and technology needs of UK commerce and industry. Companies are complaining because they want to continue to abuse the Intra-Company Transfer scheme that allows, for example, cheap Indian IT staff to be imported to displace UK workers. Of course, immigration from within the EU cannot be capped. This provides a huge pool of skilled labour. Perhaps employers aren't trying hard enough to tap this resource as they would prefer to abuse the ICT scheme. Thu 07 Oct 2010 16:52:46 GMT+1 DibbySpot Let us all be clear - politicians live in a some place other than the real world.Immigration cannot be capped while those hard workers from the EU come over to the UK and take the jobs designated for the shirkers who will have their benefit cut. So we can look forward to huge unemployment as a result.Question who would you employ a reformed benefit shirker or some "keen as mustard" Pole? Easy isn't it. These hard working people have been instrumental in driving down the mad demands of trzdesmen across the country. Now they will ensure sustained body of unemployable benefit shirkers become institutionalised unepmployed albeit at lower levels of benefit.Great idea Dave - bring it on. What planet do they sit on! Thu 07 Oct 2010 15:39:40 GMT+1 BytheCringe There needs to be a real sea change in the culture of this country and the Coalition are right in their approach to both benefits and immigration management.There has been a lazy culture in this country for far too long, encouraged under Labour by massive benefit provision to individuals fully fit for work, but too bloodyminded to take low skilled, low paid work. UK business will not be adversley effected by these new immigration caps because the flipside of halting benefits for people that are fit for work, but too lazy to get off their backsides to do it, means there will be a whole host of job applicants flooding the market for exactly the types of low skilled jobs currently taken by foreign workers. In terms of the 'high skills' end of the market, I think it's a complete red herring that we don't already have enough homegrown talent in the UK. If I'm wrong, then lets get our kids educated and onto these courses for Gods sake! Lets prioritise for a future better for us all, using homegrown talent. Thu 07 Oct 2010 15:17:26 GMT+1 tonyparksrun #8 GeoffWardI am intrigued and a little disturbed by your categories:(So I've filled in your gaps for you)Immigration:1. EU (old), by country (Germans, Danish, Swedes, those rather unpleasant Frenchies and maybe an Italian or two)2. EU (new), by country (the unwashed Romanians, Bulgarians and other East Europeans possibly even Roma, well alright then as long as they stick to picking lettuce)3. Commonwealth (old), by country (Australian, Canada New Zealand, well er that's it)4. Commonwealth (new), by country (Do you mean Mozambique? or shall we just say Africa, Indian Sub-continent and the Carribean)5. Rest of the World (Developed), by country (USA, Norway, Switzerland shall we say)6. Rest of the World (Third World), by country (Albania to Zambia, no chance).Geoff have I missed your meaning or will you explain your sub-categorization please? Thu 07 Oct 2010 14:56:37 GMT+1 jobsagoodin 'was never asked or informed about Labour's quiet policy of substantially expanding net migration into the UK'Never informed thanks to the BBC's pro immigration stance. Thu 07 Oct 2010 14:54:16 GMT+1 GeoffWard I expect the Coalition Government to segregate the following Categories:Immigration:1. EU (old), by country2. EU (new), by country 3. Commonwealth (old), by country4. Commonwealth (new), by country5. Rest of the World (Developed), by country6. Rest of the World (Third World), by countryRefugee:1. EU, by country2. Commonwealth, by country3. Rest of the World, by countryEconomic & Climatic migrants1. EU, by country2. Commonwealth, by country3. Rest of the World, by countryBy Employment Category (1 to ‘n’)1. Permanent2. TemporaryBy ‘Other Reason’ Category (1 to ‘n’)These are merely the approximation to the obvious subdivisions of people wishing to move between ‘abroad’ and (to & from) the countries and cities of the UK. All this exists.What we now need to see IN THE OPEN, are the proposals, constraints, plans, action plans, operations, target and achievements against targets.Annual reports of the above should be available for public scrutiny on July 1st, of the following year, with time allocated in the Calendar of Parliamentary Debate to check annual progress before each annual recess. Hansard will be, as usual, the official record of Government effectiveness.I would be pleased to know if all this already happens - I may be grossly under-informed! Thu 07 Oct 2010 13:58:27 GMT+1 GeoffWard I expect candour and honesty from this Coalition Government on this issue.What we have here is dissembly, using recent restriction on one category of immigrant to give the impression of 'Job Done!'.The job patently remains, and needs to be tackled across the piece..Each immigrant category should be examined in the public eye (Select Committee), and a status report presented on each, followed by public domain 'Action Required' Statements..Thus, we citizens and immigrants alike become unambiguously aware of the actions, timescales and progress to the various ends in each of the categories..I'm pretty sure, almost to the point of certainty, that the above activities (activity plans, etc.) exist, but that they are not in the public domain and therefore not subject to public scrutiny or effective public comment..In a new era of 'Open Government', this is the very least I expect of the Coalition. Thu 07 Oct 2010 13:30:22 GMT+1 BluesBerry This is just another “jump the gun” for The Coalition Government, like the “jump” on a five-year set-term Parliament but failing to foresee the huge muddle this would create. Muddles cost money to straighten out; money the UK does not have. As you say, Cameron’s proposed cap doesn't apply to the European Union.Has Cameron given one thought to the Immigration cap's repercussions on overall British competitiveness. The Coalition policy, aimed more (I think) at popularity than reality, will in addition to all the factors pointed out in this article, slow some UK businesses down, might even kill them. Can the Coalition Government cap Immigration, external to the EU, without hurting the British economy?e.g. The project: Canary Wharf - this is rail link to be named "Crossrail". Needed - skills from overseas, particularly engineering skills related to massive tunneling. I repeat: these workers are needed. Some businesses based in the UK are not skilled enough. For these businesses to remain afloat (and hire Brits), they must recruit from outside the UK, and likely outside the EU. e.g. foreign companies that set up in the UK always need to bring at least a few of their own staff because this staff is used to running the foreign business or needs to train domestic workers. Cameron's Cap will eliminate the opportunity for the UK workers to learn these highly valued skills. Thu 07 Oct 2010 12:47:48 GMT+1 Dave Derrick X-Factor singers refused to stay ? What a joke, do you want Simon Cowell sitting at customs listening to immigration hopefuls singing for entry ? Rules are indeed rules, and need enforcing. Facebook "campaigns" are not effective democracy. Thu 07 Oct 2010 12:36:36 GMT+1 jr4412 Mark Easton."Immigration is not yet "capped" - and to claim otherwise is premature at best."and let us hope that we will see an enlightened immigration policy -- one that reduces restrictions. we need more immigrants to the UK, who else is going to give birth to the 'next generation' we'll need to work and thus pay for our pensions? Thu 07 Oct 2010 12:23:48 GMT+1 jon112dk Sorry Mark, basically the same answer as last time when it was finance firms and curry houses claiming they could not operate with out importing labour.We have excellent talent among our young people who are completing high quality PhD and then finding their academic career is over because there is no next step job or research funding for them. They then go and work stacking shelves or flipping burgers because their excellent academic/scientific qualifications have no market value outside the research lab.Any time now thousands of university personnel will be loosing their jobs in the cuts. So basically same answer as last time: to be claiming you can not run a university without importing personnel whilst thousands of highly qualified british citizens are jobless is ridiculous. Stop whingeing, employ a british citizen. Thu 07 Oct 2010 12:22:38 GMT+1 BytheCringe Tough luck...them's the rules. Lets be honest, if she hadn't been on X factor then this would never have hit the headlines.At least the Coalition are trying to address what is a recognised problem, regardless of EU constraints.Hats off to them for it. Thu 07 Oct 2010 11:53:59 GMT+1 DrLoser I'm not sure how to put this, but which is the more appalling proof that this country has lost its mind? The fact that a 28 year old PhD student with a guaranteed research position at Cambridge doesn't have the brownie points (or even the cammie points) to get a visa; or the fact that the driving force behind this lack is that his post earns less than £25,000?We really are becoming a nation of useless spivs. Thu 07 Oct 2010 11:48:53 GMT+1