Home » Posts tagged 'UK immigration'
Tag Archives: UK immigration
Last week Theresa May returned from the continent with a 585-page Brexit proposal in hand that she says is worth signing so that Brexit negotiations can move forward to the ‘Future Relationship’ phase where the UK and the EU scope out what each side wants from the other over the next 50-years.
But is that appropriate when she’s attained only three of the four goals that 17.4 million Leave voters voted for in the EU referendum?
It seems Theresa May has done her best. Of that, there is no doubt.
Certainly, she has travelled many thousands of miles, endured being summoned to Brussels at 5:00 in the morning to discuss Brexit with her EU counterparts, has suffered through countless knock ’em down drag ’em out marathon negotiating sessions, been castigated in the world media and has faced down a fractious Conservative Party that should’ve had her back throughout the entire process.
And all of that added to the knocks that she receives in relation to the rest of her job — the non-Brexit-related portion of her Prime Ministerial duties. Being a British Prime Minister is tough at the best of times. More people want you to fail than to succeed. I can’t imagine why anyone would offer themselves up as an ongoing human sacrifice like that.
In short: adding Brexit to her brief, meant adding to Theresa May’s grief!
As unfair as it sounds, Theresa May, for all her good and admirable intentions has failed to deliver the Brexit deal that 17.4 million Britons voted for and in good conscience empowered the Prime Minister to accomplish.
Now Theresa May wants to skip past one of the four pillars of a successful Brexit and begin negotiating the future relationship with the EU. And that’s a non-starter.
As terrible as it sounds, Theresa May has failed to deliver what she promised to voters, to UK business, and to her party. So, does that mean she should resign? Does it mean her party should fire her and put someone else in 10 Downing St? Does it mean the acting Queen of the United Kingdom should ask for Theresa May’s resignation?
In a word, yes. (All three) But, first, let’s try to make Theresa May understand that she promised to deliver a fair and balanced Brexit agreement — one that included the four pillars of Brexit success — and that she still has work to do in order to be allowed by her party to proceed onto the next phase of the Brexit negotiations.
She’s been (mostly) fair with us and the British public has been (mostly) fair with her. The same applies to Conservative MP’s, to non-Conservative MP’s, the media, UK business, and in relation to other stakeholders in Britain’s future; She has been (mostly) fair with them and they’ve been (mostly) fair with her.
So, let’s continue to be fair to Ms. May and give her the information she needs to realize that 3-out-of-4 isn’t good enough and also give her our full support to empower her to bring home all four pillars of Brexit success — before allowing her to proceed any further with the Brexit negotiations.
If she can’t bring home a worthwhile Brexit agreement that will pass in the House of Commons, then the UK needs a new Prime Minister.
But before we take that drastic step, let’s pull out all the stops to give Theresa May every possible opportunity and all the support she needs in order to succeed in obtaining a worthy Brexit deal. She’s earned that respect from us.
The Four Pillars of the Leave Campaign
The four markers of success for Brexit were the reason that 17.4 million Britons voted to Leave the European Union. And only on the basis that Theresa May said she could attain those four goals was she hired-on as UK Prime Minister.
Hitting 3-out-of-4 of those goals wasn’t discussed.
If she had at the time of her hiring, mentioned that she could attain only 3-out-of-4 of those goals she wouldn’t have been hired to be the UK Prime Minister and someone else would’ve gotten the job. But we believed her, and therefore, she got the job.
The Four Pillars:
- Take back control of the UK’s borders and immigration
- Take back control of the UK legal system
- Take back control of the UK economy
- Take back control of UK trade
And Theresa May’s Brexit deal delivers only three of those points.
As the Prime Minister has said in recent days, her agreement will allow the UK to take back control over its borders and immigration policy, it will allow the country to take back control over its court system, and it will allow the UK to take back control over its economy.
But the deal she has handed in won’t allow the UK to negotiate free trade deals with other countries — and very much worse than that — there’s no end date for that portion of the agreement.
Theoretically and probably practically as well, the EU could keep the UK in a state of suspended animation — with the UK unable to write its own trade agreements — forever. And forever is a long time. Trust me on this.
Theresa May Has a Promise to Keep or She Must Step Aside
As horrible as it sounds, Theresa May has only kept 3-out-of-4 promises in regards to her most recent Brexit pronouncements, and if she can’t keep her fourth promise, she needs to step aside and let a new Prime Minister tackle the thing that couldn’t be done.
But first she should read a great poem by the poet Albert A. Guest:
Somebody said that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
Somebody scoffed: “Oh, you’ll never do that;
At least no one ever has done it;”
But he took off his coat and he took off his hat
And the first thing we knew he’d begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it.
There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure,
There are thousands to point out to you one by one,
The dangers that wait to assail you.
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
Just take off your coat and go to it;
Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing
That “cannot be done,” and you’ll do it.
As far as the rest of her premiership, Theresa May has done a fine job and until last week when she crashed a bit or ran out of steam, she was getting stronger and more focused every week since taking the job in July 2016, and therefore, should be accorded every respect should she choose to step down.
Few people have worked harder or endured such media spectacle and political grief and in British politics that’s saying something. All of that said however, the future of the country is more important than one Prime Minister no matter how admirably she has tried.
So, let us know your decision, Theresa. We stand by to help you reach a perfect 4-out-of-4 score — which is the only score the UK can contemplate in this case. And if you feel you can’t deliver what you’ve many times promised we wish you well in your future endeavours!
The days of a foreign power deciding how many people can live in the UK are rapidly closing. On any date past March 29, 2019 the UK government could decide to radically alter the future of Great Britain. And that’s a very good thing.
The Days of Unrestricted Immigration to the UK Are Soon Over
Until now, the UK has been forced to accept both new residents and transients who easily pass through the EU’s porous border control system called the Schengen Area (visit here to see a list of Schengen countries) where anyone from anywhere can simply walk across the border and are rarely challenged or identified by authorities.
Which is one thing if your country is on the outer rim of the Schengen Area and those undocumented people are walking through your country to get to another country; It’s quite another if your country is their destination.
8-Million Immigrants Later; UK Police & Security Services Know Surprisingly Little About Who Those Immigrants Are
And that’s the reason the UK has 8-million (mostly unknown) refugees and economic migrants. It’s a wonder there hasn’t been 10-times as many terrorist acts! A million thanks to the overworked police and to the security services who surely have more pressing matters to attend to, for keeping 99.999% of Britons safe from harm.
The Hidden Cost of Unregulated Immigration
Regardless, there is still a cost to all this additional policing and security work — whether that cost is under-serving other police and security files, or devoting more of their police and security service budgets to identifying and tracking imported (potential) problem people.
Yet the majority of refugees and economic migrants are decent people who want nothing more than to find a better life (in our UK that our forefathers built and fought for) and are prepared to work hard to accomplish that goal. But many aren’t.
And we don’t know who is who in that opaque world and we may never know as few have been vetted to a standard where we even know their names, their criminal background (if any) and other important information about them like their level of education, history of exposure to communicable diseases, extreme religious views, etc.
Getting Selective with UK Immigration
Once the UK regains control of its borders, the country can be very selective of who it allows into the country, but if a person lacks important inoculations like Chickenpox (varicella), Diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), Hepatitis B, Influenza, Measles, Meningococcal meningitis, Mumps, etc., (it’s a much longer list than that, FYI) those inoculations could be administered at any UK port of entry to protect that person and simultaneously protect all Britons from some nasty foreign diseases.
It’s far less costly in lives and in pounds sterling to provide those inoculations in advance than to allow the next contagious virus to infect 100,000 people because someone didn’t get £40 worth of vaccine at the border.
Each UK port of entry should have enough Doctors and Nurses to administer such vaccines to Britons at no cost (as infected people may unknowingly carry viruses into the UK population when returning from countries where the Zika Virus etc., are prevalent) and for the very same reasons, such injections should be free (and required) to refugees and economic migrants at every UK port of entry.
Proper Police Screening post-Brexit
With proper vetting procedures in place, the UK will never again import another terrorist or criminal entity if every refugee and economic migrant is required to produce a paper copy of a criminal records check from their country of origin as they enter the UK.
To speed throughput times at UK ports of entry, the Border Force should create a secure section on their website to accept digital copies of such documents to be submitted in advance of travel to the UK.
Such documentation should be viewed online by Border Force officers prior to each plane landing or each ship docking at any UK port of entry — then that person can hand the official paper copy to the border guard as they pass through the border control turnstiles.
Choosing the ‘Right’ Immigrants
In some years, the UK may find it has a shortage of History professors, while other years it may have a shortage of farm labourers (for two examples) but when the UK government regains control of immigration it can decide in advance how many of each to let into the country.
In other years it may be the case that the UK requires more engineers, General Physicians or construction workers; But when you’re in full control of your immigration you can allow exactly the number of people into the country every year that you need. And none that you don’t.
Seasonal Foreign Workers Should be Pre-approved by the Border Force and Should Always Originate From Commonwealth Nations
Which is why the UK government should create a special category for seasonal farm workers so they can be efficiently notified by the Border Force website as soon as they are required for the season. (‘It’s time to pack your bags for your flight to Britain!’)
Such seasonal workers should be required to pay an annual £100 application fee and provide a digital copy of their criminal records check to the Border Force in advance via a secure website set up for that purpose.
If they don’t get hired, their deposit would be returned to them at the end of the year. If they are hired by their UK employer permanently, they would pay £100 per year thenceforth.
Once the Border Force has been notified by the relevant UK government department to allow (for example) 58,750 pre-approved seasonal workers into the country, they can easily accomplish this task by consulting the Commonwealth master list.
Large farm operators may decide to pay the £100 application fee on behalf of each person they hire from abroad and may also assist them in other ways such as picking them up at the airport and transporting them directly to their accommodations on the farm, etc.
This sort of ‘sponsor’ relationship between workers and their UK employers should be strongly encouraged by the government as it will dramatically minimize false applicants — those who never report to the farm and then go on to (unknown) activities in the UK.
All Other Foreign Workers Should be Pre-approved by the Border Force and Should Always Originate from The Commonwealth and the U.S.A.
To assist the UK economy during periods of peak manufacturing, or when the service sector requires more workers than are available in the UK, Britain’s businesses could draw from a pre-approved Border Force list of up to 1-million potential workers.
Pre-approved in this case means that such persons have proved their interest in working in the UK by prepaying their £100 annual fee to the Border Force, and have provided a recent copy of their criminal records check to the secure area within the Border Force website.
If they don’t get hired, their deposit would be returned to them at the end of the year. If they are hired by their UK employer permanently, they would pay £100 per year thenceforth.
Note to busy employers: It doesn’t mean they’ll automatically be appropriate to the particular job you want them to do or that the Border Force has their CV digitally stored on the Border Force website — but it will mean they aren’t a criminal or a terrorist and that they’ve taken the right steps to ensure they’re on the pre-approved list to work in Britain.
As soon as your telephone or Skype interviews are concluded, your new employee could be on the job in one day as all government paperwork would already be done months or weeks prior to your call.
Once supersonic airline flights resume between London and New York, your new employee from America can arrive before noon on the same day you approve them, and your HR department can give them the full orientation of your London office building that afternoon so they know where to park their rental car the next morning.
The UK would be the first country in the world to utilise such ‘Just In Time Labour’ in the same way the manufacturing sector has used ‘Just In Time Delivery’ to such good effect since 1990.
The Only (New) Immigrants to the UK would be Pre-approved by the Border Force and by Employers
Now How do You Feel About Immigration?
Isn’t that a better solution than having millions of undocumented people streaming into the UK sans job offers, proper inoculations, criminal records checks, and without any purpose in life other than to escape the problems in their own country?
Even if the number of annual immigrants to the UK were to increase post-Brexit (it won’t) the total number will be less relevant overall — as every one of them will be pre-approved and invited into the country by their employers — rather than millions of them just showing up and expecting the same benefits that British taxpayers are entitled to via their decades of annual tax payments.
After March 29th 2019, the UK will have entered the 21st-century where people will apply to reside in the UK and their ability to work in the country will be based on their merits rather than on their ability to run across a border.
In the future, immigrants will be perceived to be a welcome addition to the UK instead of being perceived as a potential security threat.
Which will result in a fundamental change in how Britons feel about immigrants in a general sense, and how they feel about their foreign co-workers and neighbours.
Welcome to the 21st-century!
It’s a proven fact, men can’t bear children. Ask anyone.
Therefore, any children born in a country are going to be born to women. And before World War I, British females of child-bearing age were having 3.2 children on average which created a constant, but manageable population growth rate.
This translated into a healthy economy — all those new mouths to feed, clothe, educate and shelter — and such birthrates form the basis of every domestic economy.
In economies with a high national birthrate per fertile woman, a significant domestic economy exists and consequently, sending raw resources or manufactured goods to other countries *isn’t* required to prop up the economy.
When more people are being born than are dying every year, you have the perfect domestic economy — and exports are merely the icing on the cake — and what a ride it is when the domestic economy is growing and exports are growing every year! Woot!
That’s how Britain prospered for centuries until WWI and WWII changed all that.
Let’s Skip Over the War Part and Get to the Results
Enough has been written and filmed about Britain’s part in WWI and WWII to fill entire libraries (as it should, and to every living and long-dead veteran, thank you again for our freedom!) but for our discussion today, let’s look at how two world wars changed the demographic picture of Britain.
Women entered the formal workforce and began to earn money.
This was done because the men were away fighting a war and the country was in a desperate labour shortage. Anyone who could turn a shovel, milk a cow, assemble a rifle, or ‘man’ a telephone exchange, was put to work immediately. Some workers were barely in their teens and had plenty of responsibility on their shoulders. The British people of the last century were truly an adaptable and amazing people who rose to every challenge and succeeded. Often at great personal cost.
With most of the men away, women worked up to 16-hour shifts on farms or in factories, and still cared for their household and any children that had been born prior to the war, and Britain’s birthrate fell precipitously. In fact, the birthrate per fertile woman fell below replacement levels and the population of the country as a whole, began to fall.
No country can sustain such a falling birthrate, however due to the extremely high wartime demand for weapons and other war matériel the economy continued to function. Not as well as prior to the war mind you, but it still functioned — and apart from borrowing money on the international markets to fund the war machine — Britain’s economy remained sound. The last payment on Britain’s WWI and WWII $120 billion war debt was recently repaid in 2006.
Economic Recovery and Birthrate in the Postwar Era
The result of all this war was that there was a postwar baby boom and Britain’s economy once again began to thrive.
Two profound things changed the British economy forever in the postwar era: 1) British women were likely to put off having children and continue working, and 2) in 1961 birth control pills became available to married women and were later made available to single women.
As a result, the birthrate per fertile woman in Britain again plummeted (replacement levels in Western countries is at 2.2 babies per fertile woman) and employers were eager to employ women who were happy to work for less than half of what men earned. In some cases, women were paid only 40% of what their male counterparts earned and no one thought anything about the discrepancy — not even the women.
Women’s participation in the workforce increased, and beginning in the 1970’s the rates of pay for women began to rise and even fewer babies were born to British women who were too busy earning income to want children.
Consequently, the government was informed by industry-centric economists to open the floodgates to foreign workers (starting in 1999) to meet the demand for labour in the country (which is a different way of saying, ‘bring in the kind of workers who will work for what we used to pay the women’ e.g. 40% of the wage rate for male workers) and British profits will rise again. Indeed they did, but unemployment among British citizens rose and downward pressure on wages began to be a measurable factor.
Company profits rose, British GDP rose, productivity fell but later recovered as the foreign workers became more proficient at their jobs and had a better understanding of the English language, and domestic demand for goods and services (which every economy is built on) skyrocketed.
All of it is an astonishing success story, Britain with its wartime partners winning two world wars, rebuilding its economy in the postwar era, adding millions of women to the workforce, the introduction of pharmaceutical birth control, near-parity for women’s wages in recent years, high profits for companies and a respectable GDP growth curve.
The downside for some is that it took millions of foreign-born workers migrating to Britain to sustain growth in the UK economy because British-born women would rather work than have babies. (Just like women in other developed countries)
Which brings us to the present moment.
Would UK Women Prefer to Have Babies, or Would They Prefer to Work?
The simple answer is, if they could afford to stay home and have babies, they would. Many studies support this finding although a certain percentage of women would continue to work until their 40’s before having children.
Even in this era of cheap birth control and relatively plentiful work for women, many women would prefer to stay home and raise children. But due to lower wages as a result of massive immigration many families cannot afford to have one wage-earner staying at home to raise children.
And we all know how enormously expensive raising children can be these days.
Are There Any Solutions?
There are always solutions. The question is; Are they affordable and acceptable to the majority of citizens?
- Wages rise enough for one wage-earner to support the entire family and have enough money left over to take a nice, 3-week family vacation per year (like it used to be in the ‘old days’) OR,
- British citizens willing to go through the effort and expense of raising children must receive some kind of assistance paid by an incremental increase in the national taxation rate.
Eventually, everyone who pays taxes would be able to recoup the additional portion of the taxes paid when they themselves decide to have children.
Using a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income to Boost the UK-born Birthrate
Let’s say that UK-born ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’ want to have children. But because of the high costs of food, clothing and shelter in the UK (which you can partially blame on high immigration loads that force-up prices) they decide they must remain working until they can afford to have children. Many Britons are caught in this trap.
Why is it a trap? Because every year they remain working, the cost of everything continues to rise and they’re no further ahead after ten hard years of effort.
Both people working + one recession = no kids. It happens over and over. Working couples barely reach a point where they feel they can afford to start a family, and BOOM! along comes a financial crisis. Bad for the baby-blanket business!
It’s typical for recessions to occur every 15-25 years. So British-born couples like Richard and Anne may never reach their goal of having children, like millions of other Britons. And if they finally get to the point where they feel they can afford a family — they’re 100 years old like Abraham and Sarah of ancient Mesopotamia.
And everyone wonders why Britain has a 1.89 birth rate per fertile woman, which is far below population replacement levels. As mentioned above, 2.2 births per fertile woman is considered replacement level in developed nations. If you want to grow the population and not just maintain the present number, then the birthrate value must rise above 2.2 births per fertile woman.
The UK has a long way to go to meet replacement levels let alone begin to increase the population!
If that’s true, why does the UK population continue to increase? One word: Immigration.
Again, the solution if you don’t want ever-increasing immigration to prop-up your population and eventually replace the UK-born people;
- Raise wages dramatically so that one wage-earner can afford to provide for the entire family, OR,
- Families with children receive some kind of payment from the government financed by an incremental tax increase.
For those who don’t like higher taxes, hey, that’s your right. But don’t complain when your children are the last native-born Britons in the country!
Assuming you don’t want to hand Britain over to foreigners (even though some of them are very nice) UK-born women will need to be compensated for leaving their career and raising children.
A monthly payment can make the difference between a falling or rising birthrate.
If Richard continues to work and Anne receives a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income (PGBI) of £1088 per month, it might be enough for middle class families to get by with only one wage-earner.
In this way the negative birthrate problem in the UK will eventually be righted and massive immigration loads will no longer be required to sustain the UK population / and consequent domestic economy.
More UK-born children = fewer immigrants moving to the UK
Assuming both Richard and Anne have worked since leaving school and paid their fair share of taxes, when they are ready to start a family they will do so secure in the knowledge they will be able to afford it due to the PGBI system. Richard will earn his wages and Anne will receive £1088 per month.
At income-tax time, they simply combine their income (let’s assume £80,000/yr for Richard and £13,056 for Anne) and pay the normal amount of tax on their combined income of £93,056.
If they keep their expenses low, that’s enough annual income to raise one child until he/she reaches 18 years of age.
Which is certainly cheaper for the UK than paying double that amount to host one immigrant who will send much of his/her earned money to his home country to help his or her family for as long as he/she remains in the UK.
If we’re paying thousands per month for each immigrant (directly and indirectly) to sustain the UK population, why can’t we pay Anne less than half that monthly amount to raise a UK-born child?
Eventually, Richard and Anne’s child will grow up to become a worker and he or she won’t be sending thousands of pounds sterling off to a foreign country every year (yes, the immigrants work very hard for their money — they can do what they like with it) but the UK-born child will simply spend their earnings in the UK economy, except for his/her vacations outside of the UK.
For as long as Anne stays at home raising her children she can collect the £1088 per month — until she returns to the workforce and begins earning more than that monthly amount — or when her child hits 18 years of age her payments would automatically end.
Obviously, the easiest way to run this programme is via a ‘reverse income tax’ where a person’s income, their partner and their child, all appear on the same income tax form. After filing their combined tax form, couples would be notified of their eligibility for PGBI and monthly payments would begin.
Caveat: As long as Anne is receiving any amount of income over £1088 per month, either via unemployment insurance payments, annuity payments, inheritances, lottery winnings, gifts from family members, or from whatever other source, ‘Anne’ will not qualify for the PGBI payment. If she is earning less than £1088 per month (from all sources) the PGBI programme would top-up her personal income to £1088/month.
Although it sounds expensive, it would still be cheaper by half compared to the present method of paying immigrants to keep the UK population at a sustainable level and thereby keeping consumer demand high in the overall economy.
How to Pay for This?
Britons are already paying for it… TWICE OVER!
Each immigrant represents a significant cost to the British taxpayer, (and yes, they do work very hard to earn a living in the UK, no one is denying that) but in addition to using infrastructure and services in the country just like everyone else, there is a cost differential of about £100,000 per immigrant over their lifetime.
The Home Office / Border Force must devote considerable time and effort to immigrants with some costs happening even before the migrant lands in Britain.
Immigrants receive the same benefits as UK citizens such as welfare payments, and cost the government in other ways, including police, court, and incarceration costs, higher than average security and certain administration costs that are unique to immigrants — and they displace UK-born workers as they’re willing to work for lower wages.
In addition, they send billions of pounds sterling home every year. The figure of £20 billion per year is most often used — but it is likely much higher. Forget about official statistics, the UK government (like most governments) only records those foreign remittances that people volunteer (£3.2 billion) to share with the government. Banks and wire transfer services like Western Union know the real deal on foreign remittances.
And that’s costly to the UK economy. Just divide £20 billion by the 8 million foreign-born residents in the country and you’ll see how costly ‘foreign remittances’ are for the United Kingdom.
The final note on foreign remittances is terrifying. Such payments are notoriously difficult to prove, but the £20 billion/yr number is a guesstimate. It’s widely acknowledged that UK foreign remittances may be double that amount, and could in the very worst-case scenario top £56 billion per year. And you don’t want to know the grand total of foreign remittances since 1999. No matter the number, it’s a lot of money leaving the UK that will never, ever, return.
What could those billions have done for the UK economy? We’ll never know.
‘Cutting Our Losses’ Covers Half of the Cost of a Parental GBI, but More Tax?
In addition to lowering immigration to low levels because UK-born women would be having more babies — there would need to be an incremental tax increase.
A Tobin Tax is simply a tax on all financial transactions in the country. It’s called an ‘invisible tax’ because banks and retailers simply add an internal 1% tax to each and every financial transaction and remit the revenue to the government annually.
- Buy or sell some stock, it costs you 1% more than at present.
- Buy a beer, it costs you 1% more than at present.
- Take £100 from the ATM (yes, that’s a financial transaction) and the bank charges you 1% on the total amount.
- Buy some petrol and 1% is automatically added to the cost.
Basically, whatever you purchase is going to cost you 1% more unless it’s something that costs more than £100,000 — because you pay the Tobin Tax only on the first £100,000 on any individual purchase. Which is nice when you’re buying an Airbus A350 or other large purchase.
Yes, nobody likes higher taxes that’s for certain. But there’s no rule that the Tobin Tax must be set as high as 1%. A Tobin Tax could be used to fund special projects like a GBI for UK parents only — in which case it could be set at .2% on individual purchases.
It’s your choice.
Does lower immigration, lower foreign remittance levels, more UK-born children to keep the population stable, and more jobs for Britons matter to you? Or does a Parental GBI funded by a .2% Tobin Tax nullify those gains?
Let us know in the comments!
Population & Density Charts for the United Kingdom 1950 – 2020