| Shabama Mahmood 12:06 - Nov 5 with 2274 views | DJR |
Leaving aside the unfairness of changing the goalposts for "legal" migrants already here, with all the extra cost and uncertainty that brings, her proposals for those who arrive by small boat but are given refugee status are pretty deplorable.
It's hardly caused a stir but here is the reaction from some quarters.
Imran Hussain, executive director of external affairs at the Refugee Council, said:
"Refugees are being asked to rebuild their lives on a status that expires every 30 months for what could be 30 years. That is unfair and unworkable.
These plans condemn refugees to decades of deep insecurity, unable to lay down roots in Britain and contribute their potential. And there is no evidence to suggest that harming refugee integration will act as a disincentive to refugees fleeing the Taliban or brutal conflicts like Sudan. It also creates another bureaucratic nightmare for a Home Office that already is struggling with poor quality initial decisions on asylum cases which is leading to avoidable costs and delays in the appeals system."
Flora Alexander, executive director of International Rescue Committee UK, said:
"A route to settlement that takes up to 30 years means people will be left in limbo for more than a third of their lifetime. Those who have fled conflict and persecution should have the chance to rebuild their lives, not put them on hold for decades."
And the UNHCR said this.
“An extended qualifying period for settlement for refugees raises significant concerns, particularly when considered alongside the introduction of short-term stay arrangements and changes made last year that would preclude many from ever accessing citizenship.
Taken together, these measures are likely to be detrimental to refugees’ sense of security, belonging and stability, and to impact their ability to contribute and become part of their new communities.
Refugees are not migrants: they have fled their countries because they cannot rely on their protection nor safely return home. For refugees, safety means more than a grant of asylum and settlement has an important role to play.”
|  | | |  |
| Shabama Mahmood on 14:06 - Nov 5 with 0 views | DJR |
Here's a follow up which clarifies a point that I was unsure about.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk
"Mahmood accused of hardening rules for 200,000 successful asylum applicants
People previously told they could apply for indefinite leave after five years now come under 30-year ‘earned settlement’ plan"
And of course when Labour introduces retrospective proposals in relation to migrants and refugees, Badenoch and Farage say "hold my beer" with proposals to make acquiring settled status even harder or even to remove it altogether. [Post edited 5 Nov 14:11]
| | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:00 - Nov 5 with 0 views | J2BLUE |
Probably an unpopular idea but we need a referendum on immigration. Political parties are unable or unwilling to either tackle it or say we welcome it. A referendum would give a definitive answer. It's constantly the biggest issue in polls. Not sure how it would be structured if there are multiple options but it seems the only way out to me. |  | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:19 - Nov 5 with 0 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Shabama Mahmood on 14:06 - Nov 5 by DJR |
Here's a follow up which clarifies a point that I was unsure about.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk
"Mahmood accused of hardening rules for 200,000 successful asylum applicants
People previously told they could apply for indefinite leave after five years now come under 30-year ‘earned settlement’ plan"
And of course when Labour introduces retrospective proposals in relation to migrants and refugees, Badenoch and Farage say "hold my beer" with proposals to make acquiring settled status even harder or even to remove it altogether. [Post edited 5 Nov 14:11]
|
Badenoch of all people has absolutely no standing when it comes to retrospective immigration rules.... |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:40 - Nov 5 with 0 views | OldFart71 |
Whilst anyone must have a certain sympathy with the immigrants it still remains a fact that if they were being looked after anywhere near as well in France as they are here why would they make a dangerous journey across the Channel,
And why are we paying the French millions which we currently don't have for them to puncture the odd boat when a camera is rolling when apart from that they are doing nothing to stop them.
Also why are about 95% of them young men.
Nobody leaves their women and children behind.
Ukraine is fighting a war, you don't see huge swathes of their men leaving their women to fight.
Why did the government get Cooper out of the job to be replaced by Mahmood when clearly the backbenchers and not the Home Secretary are the ones running governmental policies. |  | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 19:41 - Nov 5 with 0 views | EdwardStone |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:00 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE |
Probably an unpopular idea but we need a referendum on immigration. Political parties are unable or unwilling to either tackle it or say we welcome it. A referendum would give a definitive answer. It's constantly the biggest issue in polls. Not sure how it would be structured if there are multiple options but it seems the only way out to me. |
I think we can probably agree that trying to resolve a complex arguement like immigration through a binary yes/no referendum is a pretty dangerous idea
The Brexit referendum has soured our society for a generation: I cannot conceive that any good could come from allowing Farage and other bad faith bigots the opportunity to whip the unthinking GBP ( Great British Public) into an further bout of jingoistic nonsense and nationallistic gussett moistening.
I usually like your contributions Mr J2; despite your name sounding like an expensive soft drink, you usually talk sense
But a further divisive referendum would be insanity |  | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 19:49 - Nov 5 with 0 views | Swansea_Blue |
I find Mahmood’s whole stance morally vacant and self-destructive. I can’t get my head around why she’s doing this and why Burnham is supporting her. On no level does it deliver. It won’t convince the ignorant and racist to vote for them. It breaks promises and shows us to be an unreliable and unserious country. And it adversely impacts the sectors that rely on immigrant workers or customers and loses the exchequer £billions. |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:03 - Nov 5 with 0 views | EdwardStone |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:40 - Nov 5 by OldFart71 |
Whilst anyone must have a certain sympathy with the immigrants it still remains a fact that if they were being looked after anywhere near as well in France as they are here why would they make a dangerous journey across the Channel,
And why are we paying the French millions which we currently don't have for them to puncture the odd boat when a camera is rolling when apart from that they are doing nothing to stop them.
Also why are about 95% of them young men.
Nobody leaves their women and children behind.
Ukraine is fighting a war, you don't see huge swathes of their men leaving their women to fight.
Why did the government get Cooper out of the job to be replaced by Mahmood when clearly the backbenchers and not the Home Secretary are the ones running governmental policies. |
There is just soooo much wrong in this post, it isn't easy to know where to start
One should certainly have sympathy with refugees... can you actually spend a moment to wonder how desperate their lives must be to want to leave their home and all they know to risk everything on finding a better life.
For many years, the UK has been lauded throughout the World as a bastion of common decency and fair play. Our culture and language has covered the globe in ways that other countries like France, Italy and Spain can only dream of
In the last centuary we stood alone as a beacon of hope and democracy in a world threatened by zealots and tyranny.
It is little wonder to me that people from all over the world admire us and wish to join us.... can you imagine living in a country that literally no one admired or wished to become a part of?
Maybe the people coming here speak English but not French? Maybe they already have some rellies or contacts here who might be able to help them?
And I guess a family marooned in a UN refugee camp in Syria might not have enough money for everyone to travel to try and build a new life in a new land....so they pick the one person most likely to arrive in one piece and hopefully get a toe-hold to then be able to invite the remaining family members at some later stage....so not the aged grandma, not the teenage daughter, not the wife with babe in arms but the young strong male who has the best chance to survive the journey and commence a new life
Leaving their women and children behind is not an easy choice; it is an economic reality
Please... just spend a few moments and try to imagine what decisions you might make if you were stuck in a UN refugee camp, you have been living in a tent for the past few years. You have been given enough food and water so you don't die, but you cannot return to your farm because of war, you have no hope and you cannot see a future..... what might you do?
Walk a mile in their shoes fella [Post edited 5 Nov 20:30]
| | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:04 - Nov 5 with 0 views | bartyg |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:00 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE |
Probably an unpopular idea but we need a referendum on immigration. Political parties are unable or unwilling to either tackle it or say we welcome it. A referendum would give a definitive answer. It's constantly the biggest issue in polls. Not sure how it would be structured if there are multiple options but it seems the only way out to me. |
What on earth is a referendum going to tell us? ALL we talk about is immigration. All of the major parties, beside the Greens, talk constantly about reducing it. This isn't a mandate issue, it's a logistics issue. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:08 - Nov 5 with 0 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:04 - Nov 5 by bartyg |
What on earth is a referendum going to tell us? ALL we talk about is immigration. All of the major parties, beside the Greens, talk constantly about reducing it. This isn't a mandate issue, it's a logistics issue. |
It will very soon be an issue of how to increase it quickly the way the numbers are tumbling. | |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:39 - Nov 5 with 0 views | DJR |
| Shabama Mahmood on 19:49 - Nov 5 by Swansea_Blue |
I find Mahmood’s whole stance morally vacant and self-destructive. I can’t get my head around why she’s doing this and why Burnham is supporting her. On no level does it deliver. It won’t convince the ignorant and racist to vote for them. It breaks promises and shows us to be an unreliable and unserious country. And it adversely impacts the sectors that rely on immigrant workers or customers and loses the exchequer £billions. |
When it comes to care workers, for whom there has been a concession but not one that applies to all, this is a good article.
https://www.theguardian.com/co
Those who don’t meet the strict requirements will have to get another five-year “health and social care” visa before applying for ILR – a move campaigners are warning will leave vulnerable workers open to exploitation from unscrupulous employers.
Ministers have not established what benefit any of this is meant to bestow on the British people, millions of whom rely on migrant carers to help them or their elderly parents wash and dress. Nor has anyone explained how Labour’s upcoming care reforms will work while alienating – rather than actively recruiting – more international staff, as recent tightened immigration rules already have.
Or, to put it another way: the government has simultaneously pledged to fix social care while creating a hostile environment for the migrant staff who keep the system afloat. It sums up not only the nastiness of it all, but the deep-seated irrationality that now plagues almost any mainstream conversation about immigration, with politicians across the spectrum seemingly contractually obliged to ignore basic common sense as well as decency.
Few things demonstrate this more than the obsession with the “contribution v cost” framing that dominates these debates, and which Labour has now threaded through its visa policy.
That Mahmood has been doing the rounds in recent months using disputed figures to claim that granting ILR to care staff and their families for the next few years would cost the public purse £10bn over a lifetime suggests how unreliable – and outright ludicrous – the cost v contribution binary is. These are the people keeping our loved ones alive for the minimum wage and we’re still debating whether they’re a burden on the taxpayer.
Of course, evidence shows care workers are, to use that favoured phrase, “net contributors”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found this week that skilled migrants – including care workers – and their families due to settle in the UK under current rules are expected to boost the public purse by a staggering £115bn through taxes.
Such a figure doesn’t even include the many other ways care workers save the country money: by enabling family members to keep paying income tax rather than quitting their jobs to be an unpaid carer; supporting younger disabled people to get to the office and stay in work; or keeping older people out of expensive hospital beds by reducing their risk of falls.
And yet we are losing something if we accept the idea that a migrant’s “contribution” is only in economic terms, as if the Home Office can scan a human being at the border and put a price tag round their neck. Anyone who has ever relied on a good carer knows there is value that can’t be measured on a spreadsheet: the security of knowing there is someone to help you get out of bed in the morning; the dignity of having a regular shower; the laughter that comes with a shared joke as you write the shopping list together.
You won’t see many of these people on front pages or hear their voices on radio call-ins. But the people providing care and those who rely on it will “contribute” considerably more to the debate than the non-disabled white contrarians who so persistently dominate it.
If it is a “legitimate concern” for the public to worry about immigration, it is legitimate for a disabled person to be afraid there will be no one to help them cook dinner, or for a migrant to worry about where they’ll live next year.
Because here’s the thing about fears: some are irrational, and others are not. Labour would do well to remember which ones it should listen to and which it should challenge." [Post edited 5 Nov 20:41]
| | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:44 - Nov 5 with 0 views | MattinLondon |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:00 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE |
Probably an unpopular idea but we need a referendum on immigration. Political parties are unable or unwilling to either tackle it or say we welcome it. A referendum would give a definitive answer. It's constantly the biggest issue in polls. Not sure how it would be structured if there are multiple options but it seems the only way out to me. |
I wouldn’t say that a referendum on immigration would be unpopular but it certainly would be total bollox.
It’ll give a licence to hate-preacher Farage and his merry band of halfwits to pollute the airwaves and internet with vitriolic lies. Think Brexit, but much more total bull s**t.
The only way to counter such hysterical arse would be for a well-informed population to call it out and to see through such lies - you think the UK matches that description? |  | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 21:20 - Nov 5 with 0 views | Radlett_blue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:00 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE |
Probably an unpopular idea but we need a referendum on immigration. Political parties are unable or unwilling to either tackle it or say we welcome it. A referendum would give a definitive answer. It's constantly the biggest issue in polls. Not sure how it would be structured if there are multiple options but it seems the only way out to me. |
Hmm...the Brexit referendum went well, right?
And the "once in a Generation" referendum on Scottish independence. |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 22:50 - Nov 5 with 0 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 20:39 - Nov 5 by DJR |
When it comes to care workers, for whom there has been a concession but not one that applies to all, this is a good article.
https://www.theguardian.com/co
Those who don’t meet the strict requirements will have to get another five-year “health and social care” visa before applying for ILR – a move campaigners are warning will leave vulnerable workers open to exploitation from unscrupulous employers.
Ministers have not established what benefit any of this is meant to bestow on the British people, millions of whom rely on migrant carers to help them or their elderly parents wash and dress. Nor has anyone explained how Labour’s upcoming care reforms will work while alienating – rather than actively recruiting – more international staff, as recent tightened immigration rules already have.
Or, to put it another way: the government has simultaneously pledged to fix social care while creating a hostile environment for the migrant staff who keep the system afloat. It sums up not only the nastiness of it all, but the deep-seated irrationality that now plagues almost any mainstream conversation about immigration, with politicians across the spectrum seemingly contractually obliged to ignore basic common sense as well as decency.
Few things demonstrate this more than the obsession with the “contribution v cost” framing that dominates these debates, and which Labour has now threaded through its visa policy.
That Mahmood has been doing the rounds in recent months using disputed figures to claim that granting ILR to care staff and their families for the next few years would cost the public purse £10bn over a lifetime suggests how unreliable – and outright ludicrous – the cost v contribution binary is. These are the people keeping our loved ones alive for the minimum wage and we’re still debating whether they’re a burden on the taxpayer.
Of course, evidence shows care workers are, to use that favoured phrase, “net contributors”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found this week that skilled migrants – including care workers – and their families due to settle in the UK under current rules are expected to boost the public purse by a staggering £115bn through taxes.
Such a figure doesn’t even include the many other ways care workers save the country money: by enabling family members to keep paying income tax rather than quitting their jobs to be an unpaid carer; supporting younger disabled people to get to the office and stay in work; or keeping older people out of expensive hospital beds by reducing their risk of falls.
And yet we are losing something if we accept the idea that a migrant’s “contribution” is only in economic terms, as if the Home Office can scan a human being at the border and put a price tag round their neck. Anyone who has ever relied on a good carer knows there is value that can’t be measured on a spreadsheet: the security of knowing there is someone to help you get out of bed in the morning; the dignity of having a regular shower; the laughter that comes with a shared joke as you write the shopping list together.
You won’t see many of these people on front pages or hear their voices on radio call-ins. But the people providing care and those who rely on it will “contribute” considerably more to the debate than the non-disabled white contrarians who so persistently dominate it.
If it is a “legitimate concern” for the public to worry about immigration, it is legitimate for a disabled person to be afraid there will be no one to help them cook dinner, or for a migrant to worry about where they’ll live next year.
Because here’s the thing about fears: some are irrational, and others are not. Labour would do well to remember which ones it should listen to and which it should challenge." [Post edited 5 Nov 20:41]
|
We’re almost turning them into unwelcome itinerant workers rather than people who fully participate in society and should be considered part of it. It’s not just opening the door for employers to abuse them either. What happens when a government changes and we get another sociopath in government trying to outdo Mahmood? I just don’t think it’s any way to treat people even before we get on to all the the positive benefits.
Lucy Powell fecked me off today as well refusing to accept the government’s role in the slow collapse of the university sector. And that’s very much linked to Mahmood’s punitive ideas around immigration.
Labour need to be better and do better. | |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 23:09 - Nov 5 with 0 views | J2BLUE |
| Shabama Mahmood on 19:41 - Nov 5 by EdwardStone |
I think we can probably agree that trying to resolve a complex arguement like immigration through a binary yes/no referendum is a pretty dangerous idea
The Brexit referendum has soured our society for a generation: I cannot conceive that any good could come from allowing Farage and other bad faith bigots the opportunity to whip the unthinking GBP ( Great British Public) into an further bout of jingoistic nonsense and nationallistic gussett moistening.
I usually like your contributions Mr J2; despite your name sounding like an expensive soft drink, you usually talk sense
But a further divisive referendum would be insanity |
I said there could be multiple options with different systems to tally votes.
I am interested in what you would do? Immigration is constantly the biggest issue in polls so what would you do about it? I know many on here would just like to ignore it but genuinely curious as to what you would do? | | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 06:43 - Nov 6 with 0 views | Benters |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:40 - Nov 5 by OldFart71 |
Whilst anyone must have a certain sympathy with the immigrants it still remains a fact that if they were being looked after anywhere near as well in France as they are here why would they make a dangerous journey across the Channel,
And why are we paying the French millions which we currently don't have for them to puncture the odd boat when a camera is rolling when apart from that they are doing nothing to stop them.
Also why are about 95% of them young men.
Nobody leaves their women and children behind.
Ukraine is fighting a war, you don't see huge swathes of their men leaving their women to fight.
Why did the government get Cooper out of the job to be replaced by Mahmood when clearly the backbenchers and not the Home Secretary are the ones running governmental policies. |
It’s an uppie from me. |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 07:24 - Nov 6 with 0 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Shabama Mahmood on 15:40 - Nov 5 by OldFart71 |
Whilst anyone must have a certain sympathy with the immigrants it still remains a fact that if they were being looked after anywhere near as well in France as they are here why would they make a dangerous journey across the Channel,
And why are we paying the French millions which we currently don't have for them to puncture the odd boat when a camera is rolling when apart from that they are doing nothing to stop them.
Also why are about 95% of them young men.
Nobody leaves their women and children behind.
Ukraine is fighting a war, you don't see huge swathes of their men leaving their women to fight.
Why did the government get Cooper out of the job to be replaced by Mahmood when clearly the backbenchers and not the Home Secretary are the ones running governmental policies. |
The suggestion that France does nothing is incorrect. UK-funded French operations have prevented thousands of crossings as evidenced by the reduction in numbers
It’s not 95%. Home office figures show 72% male, 13% female and 15% children.
https://commonslibrary.parliam
A significant majority, but as you say, it’s a dangerous crossing. Men travel ahead of their families and they subsequently seek to reunite through legal family migration routes. There are various studies
https://migrationobservatory.o
The Ukraine comparison isn't quite fair either. Ukrainian men of military age have faced restrictions on leaving the country under martial law. That's a very different situation from people fleeing conflicts elsewhere.
We can absolutely debate immigration policy, border security and public spending without relying on exaggerated figures or assumptions about everyone making the journey. Facts matter, whichever side of the debate we're on. |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 07:42 - Nov 6 with 0 views | MattinLondon |
| Shabama Mahmood on 06:43 - Nov 6 by Benters |
It’s an uppie from me. |
Not like you to upvote meaningless drivel with no basis in fact. | | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:15 - Nov 6 with 0 views | lowhouseblue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 23:09 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE |
I said there could be multiple options with different systems to tally votes.
I am interested in what you would do? Immigration is constantly the biggest issue in polls so what would you do about it? I know many on here would just like to ignore it but genuinely curious as to what you would do? |
immigration is the biggest issue in polls largely because people have been consistently ignored and belittled by governments and policy makers. they weren't just ignored they were called racist for having different views on immigration policy. the boris wave occurred without any democratic mandate and when it was very clear that a majority of the public opposed it. it's also now clear that the boris wave involved not just an utterly unprecedented increase in numbers but a huge change in the character of immigration - a shift to low skill people, non-economically active people, and people who would be a net draw on public resources, including social housing. the current government accepts all this to be true - when i posted it on here in the past there was the usual response of denial and name calling.
the issue mahmood is now addressing is whether over-riding the public will is to be made permanent by granting some 2 million people indefinite leave to remain. the people who complain of unfairness when it comes to lengthening the time to ilr seem completely comfortable with a policy having been imposed, the boris wave, with no democratic approval and against the express wishes of the public. [Post edited 6 Nov 8:16]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:33 - Nov 6 with 0 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Shabama Mahmood on 07:24 - Nov 6 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
The suggestion that France does nothing is incorrect. UK-funded French operations have prevented thousands of crossings as evidenced by the reduction in numbers
It’s not 95%. Home office figures show 72% male, 13% female and 15% children.
https://commonslibrary.parliam
A significant majority, but as you say, it’s a dangerous crossing. Men travel ahead of their families and they subsequently seek to reunite through legal family migration routes. There are various studies
https://migrationobservatory.o
The Ukraine comparison isn't quite fair either. Ukrainian men of military age have faced restrictions on leaving the country under martial law. That's a very different situation from people fleeing conflicts elsewhere.
We can absolutely debate immigration policy, border security and public spending without relying on exaggerated figures or assumptions about everyone making the journey. Facts matter, whichever side of the debate we're on. |
The small boat crossings are unsafe and operated by criminals, so it isn’t massively surprising that there has been policy implemented as a deterrent for that kind of entry.
Settlement is still allowed to be applied for after 5 years for those arriving by legal and safe means. Making this path easier for those in real need is clearly where the focus needs to be. |  |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:33 - Nov 6 with 0 views | DJR |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:15 - Nov 6 by lowhouseblue |
immigration is the biggest issue in polls largely because people have been consistently ignored and belittled by governments and policy makers. they weren't just ignored they were called racist for having different views on immigration policy. the boris wave occurred without any democratic mandate and when it was very clear that a majority of the public opposed it. it's also now clear that the boris wave involved not just an utterly unprecedented increase in numbers but a huge change in the character of immigration - a shift to low skill people, non-economically active people, and people who would be a net draw on public resources, including social housing. the current government accepts all this to be true - when i posted it on here in the past there was the usual response of denial and name calling.
the issue mahmood is now addressing is whether over-riding the public will is to be made permanent by granting some 2 million people indefinite leave to remain. the people who complain of unfairness when it comes to lengthening the time to ilr seem completely comfortable with a policy having been imposed, the boris wave, with no democratic approval and against the express wishes of the public. [Post edited 6 Nov 8:16]
|
Not often I agree with Owen Jones but this is the fundamental issue for me when it comes to migrants already legally here.
"The fundamental breach of trust is a violation of any principles of natural justice. When Mahmood’s Conservative predecessor Theresa May introduced a £35,000 settlement salary threshold in 2012, she exempted migrants who had obtained qualifying work visas before April 2011. Mahmood, on the other hand, is applying the 10-year baseline to many of those already lawfully resident. That’s despite many migrants and their families having made plans around what was promised to them. Half a million people will be hit by this promise-breaking."
And of course it sets a precedent, with Farage and Badenoch even proposing to remove those who have settled status. Indeed, were they to achieve power and withdraw us from the ECHR, who knows what further awful things they might get up to.
And it mustn't be forgotten that a lot of the anger seems also targeted at people in areas such as Birmingham who have been here a long time or even born here and are British citizens.
EDIT: interestingly in terms of population growth the chart in the following link suggests that, despite the Boris wave, the population in 2024 had been on a similar trajectory since 2010.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 6 Nov 8:47]
| | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:44 - Nov 6 with 0 views | lowhouseblue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:33 - Nov 6 by DJR |
Not often I agree with Owen Jones but this is the fundamental issue for me when it comes to migrants already legally here.
"The fundamental breach of trust is a violation of any principles of natural justice. When Mahmood’s Conservative predecessor Theresa May introduced a £35,000 settlement salary threshold in 2012, she exempted migrants who had obtained qualifying work visas before April 2011. Mahmood, on the other hand, is applying the 10-year baseline to many of those already lawfully resident. That’s despite many migrants and their families having made plans around what was promised to them. Half a million people will be hit by this promise-breaking."
And of course it sets a precedent, with Farage and Badenoch even proposing to remove those who have settled status. Indeed, were they to achieve power and withdraw us from the ECHR, who knows what further awful things they might get up to.
And it mustn't be forgotten that a lot of the anger seems also targeted at people in areas such as Birmingham who have been here a long time or even born here and are British citizens.
EDIT: interestingly in terms of population growth the chart in the following link suggests that, despite the Boris wave, the population in 2024 had been on a similar trajectory since 2010.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 6 Nov 8:47]
|
it wasn't promised to them. visas are time limited and that period of 5 years was the only guarantee. beyond that immigration policy can vary and the possibility of going beyond the time specified in a visa is never certain in any country. the problem is that people have been encouraged to use a short-term provision which comes with restrictions - eg you have to work in the care sector - as a back door route to permanent unrestricted migration. again the latter was never guaranteed and it's wrong to pretend that it was. settled status is quite distinct from being a visa holder.
in terms of a 'fundamental breach of trust' a majority of the public see that as being the imposition of the boris wave with no democratic mandate and against clear public opposition. making that permanent on a large scale just reinforces that breach of trust. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:57 - Nov 6 with 0 views | DJR |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:44 - Nov 6 by lowhouseblue |
it wasn't promised to them. visas are time limited and that period of 5 years was the only guarantee. beyond that immigration policy can vary and the possibility of going beyond the time specified in a visa is never certain in any country. the problem is that people have been encouraged to use a short-term provision which comes with restrictions - eg you have to work in the care sector - as a back door route to permanent unrestricted migration. again the latter was never guaranteed and it's wrong to pretend that it was. settled status is quite distinct from being a visa holder.
in terms of a 'fundamental breach of trust' a majority of the public see that as being the imposition of the boris wave with no democratic mandate and against clear public opposition. making that permanent on a large scale just reinforces that breach of trust. |
But the proposals only seem to affect 500,000 people far less than thee Boris wave, and who is to say the vast majority won't eventually qualify anyway?
https://www.gov.uk/government/
Is it really worth becoming a country that does this sort of thing for that which will never be enough for some.
But then again, we have become the country where two of the leading parties propose leaving the ECHR with all that might entail?
Anyway, we clearly have different views on this, so happy to disagree. [Post edited 6 Nov 9:01]
| | | |
| Shabama Mahmood on 09:08 - Nov 6 with 0 views | lowhouseblue |
| Shabama Mahmood on 08:57 - Nov 6 by DJR |
But the proposals only seem to affect 500,000 people far less than thee Boris wave, and who is to say the vast majority won't eventually qualify anyway?
https://www.gov.uk/government/
Is it really worth becoming a country that does this sort of thing for that which will never be enough for some.
But then again, we have become the country where two of the leading parties propose leaving the ECHR with all that might entail?
Anyway, we clearly have different views on this, so happy to disagree. [Post edited 6 Nov 9:01]
|
the issue is really what j2 pointed out - immigration is the top priority for most of the public in most polls. what has happened in the last 5 years has led to a huge erosion of trust in government and in politics (ok, it's definitely not the only thing reducing trust but it's a significant factor). boris et al promised one thing and consciously and determinedly did the exact opposite. at the same time people on the left tried to shut down any discussion and threw nasty accusations about at anyone who challenged them. what happens now is in the hands of the plp, and we all know that a proportion there think the boris wave was wonderful and the public deserve to be ignored. it is a chasm in our national politics and pretending otherwise is pointless. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
