Good post Stirling, the points you raise are the some of the very reasons why Ukip are now mopping up disenfranchised Labour voters. The media often believe that Ukip are predominantly a threat to the Tory’s but the way I see it, Ukip could become the new labour ( I don’t mean the new new labour!)

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

My first point would be that the relevant numbers are net migration when assessing overall national/international situation,which is different to just looking at immigration,though I accept the net figure has risen.And don't forget groups like school kids and students from overseas,who get added into the figures.

I believe in free movement for EU nationals as a part of the overall benefits to the UK of EU freedom of movement of goods,services and labour.I know you disagree,but lets leave that to one side.

I don't disagree with immigration controls in relation to non EU nationals.At present, you will obviously factor in that there are pretty strong immigration rules.I posted the link of what they are earlier.

Should immigration go down,say next year or the year after,under free EU movement of labour and say the current rules,would I bemoan it as a matter of principle ? No.Do I think,as part of the big picture globally,it is a crisis for the UK if the current position remains and net immigration rises next year and/or the year after,no...but that's a little different to saying i/we think only rising immigration is good so we should actively now change the current rules to actively seek to increase it...

I might seek to change people's perception of why they think their world/economic situation is not what they would like away from any over-focus on immigration,but that's a separate point,though not invalid as to why some people might think as you say they do or whether there are other factors apart from economic/social effects of immigration per se that might impinge on their reasons for such view.

So,its not as simplistic as saying "people on the left" (and I know you don't stupidly lump in all you think of as being on the left as one bloc,any more than the right wing spectrum is)want a society premised on increased immigration as a sole core raison d'etre.

How do you think (if you do) the current immigration rules re non EU nationals should be "strengthened" in support of your "goal"?

You might want to not totally ignore points like the change being introduced in 2016 of a blanket £35,000 income threshold being necessary before settlement is granted to non-EU economic migrant nationals,not withstanding calls from the Royal College of Midwives of the likely NHS staffing crisis ensuing.

Edited by legaleagle (05 Aug 2015 12.16am)

I don't have those to hand but the academic study in the link below,which might give a "trend" idea, concluded that between 2001-2011
EEA migrants to the UK's contributions to the tax and welfare system put more money in than they took out; between 2001 and 2011 EEA immigrants contributed 34% more to the fiscal system than they took out, equivalent to a net contribution of around £22 billion.

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to claim benefits or tax credits than the general non-migrant UK population.Their research also indicated that non EEA migrants were less likely to claim benefits/tax credits than the general non migrant population.

I realise that for some nothing will convince them that all migrants are not benefit seeking "scroungers", or for that matter that the UK is not refugee heaven number one intended destination.But for anyone interested in input into a meaningful and balanced discussion,that research would suggest a lot of migrants will work.

[Link]

In terms of "asylum application" figures,the Eurostat figures for 2014-15 (ec.europa.eu)give an indication.We were sixth position out of 26 EU countries with 31,000 applications,compared to the "real big boys",Germany with 212,000,Hungary 71,000,Italy 68,000 and France 58,000.

Bear in mind that's applications,not people actually granted asylum.According to UK government figures (gov.uk) ,there were 24,000 asylum applications in 2014(as opposed to over 80,000 in 2002)Out of 19,000 initial decisions given when an applicant's application had been assessed,asylum was only granted in 8,000 cases.90% of applications came from people already in the UK as opposed to those claiming it when entering.

We have no choice but to let legal immigrants stay. Why do you want to deport legal immigrants? Why from those two countries in particular? Why pick on immigrants that are of a particular ethnic group in the main? You say there are "pressure points on our services" - which services do you think are under pressure? (As always) it would also be useful to know what your immigration policy is, and your view as to whether we need any sort of immigration controls, and is so, what they should be.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Reasoned posts that critique what I've posted welcomed.

But,lets take a look at some of your own biases.

EU funding (so you say)of "research group" ,in fact University College London academics, equals: report must be dodgy.

Attack on that report by academic funded by Civitas, free market think tank,ideologically of the right and with its roots in that think tank incubator of Thatcherism the Institute of Economic Affairs: neutral by definition and no problem at all.

Lord Harris, enobled by Maggie and who had led the IEA and had spoken of Rupert Murdoch as the "saviour of what we used to know as Fleet Street",was Civitas' chairman and a leading light in "setting its direction of travel"

Surely you don't have double standards depending on whether you agree with the academic in question or not?

Presumably as a "neutral" observer,you also took the trouble to familiarise yourself with the authors' of the first report's rebuttal of Stones "critique" and the PR spin put out about it by (that ever so impartial,restrained and neutral organisation) Civitas?

Here it is:

"In conclusion, we welcome constructive comments on our analysis. We are pleased that our report is so thoroughly publicly scrutinised, and we believe that this interchange will help improve the way we inform the public debate on this important and sensitive issue. However, we reject the offensive tones used by Civitas’ press release, and we believe that if accusing someone of "schoolboy errors", as done by Civitas’ director David Green, you ought to be able to point to more actual errors".

[Link]

Do also look at this November 2014 journal paper:

[Link]

"We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since 1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that joined the EU in 2004."

No doubt Civitas have commissioned a critique of this too.

As for "I'm going to brush 50% of immigration policy under the carpet" that's a little silly.I've made clear I agree with freedom of goods,services and labour within the EU.I respect others don't.But that's its own huge topic involving far more than just immigration needing its own thread.,so it is not illegitimate to make points in this thread relating to non EU migration,particularly given the present heated debate here re immigration stems from non EU migrant matters in Calais and the lengthy thread on that..

I look forward to reading your critique of my reference to the UK's non EU migrant "points-like" rules.

Perhaps you'd start with reference to the actual immigration rules,which I posted a link to?

Edited by legaleagle (05 Aug 2015 9.57am)