Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Click here if you want to lose the will to live.

The Home Office confirmed the bill would:

• Require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants.

• Require temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status, to make a contribution to the NHS. A £200 levy has been mentioned as an option.

• Require banks to check against a database of known immigration offenders before opening a bank account.

• Create new powers to check the immigration status of driving licence applicants and to revoke the licences of overstayers.

• Introduce a "deport first, appeal later" policy for thousands facing removal who face no "risk of serious irreversible harm" from being sent back, and reduce the grounds for appeal from 17 to four.

This is the Tory party who claim their main goal is to reduce public spending and reduce the burden of regulation on society, now announcing plans for a gargantuan, unworkable, expensive new bureaucracy that once again will completely fail to have any measurable effect because it targets a moronic nonexistent stereotype of illegal immigrants as rolling in cash and exploiting the aid of the state. Of course it has to target such ludicrous unreality, because the goal of the policy isn't to actually deal with perceived issues in the immigration system, the goal of the policy is to try and claw back some of the core Tory voting block of swivel-eyed Daily Mail-reading Europhobic loons who've been defecting to UKIP in huge numbers ever since Cameron's ill-fated attempt to pretend the Conservative Party isn't still just a "living history" reenactment society performing the 19th Century over and over again.

Now, cue Milibungler's "One Nation" Labour party's standard response to Tory policy in this parliament; criticising it in a vague, nonspecific way while still, in a roundabout and noncommittal fashion, implying that he'd do the same thing only better, cheaper, and slower/kinder.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Click here if you want to lose the will to live.

The Home Office confirmed the bill would:

• Require temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status, to make a contribution to the NHS. A £200 levy has been mentioned as an option.

Ok genuine question, but why shouldn't migrants have to pay an NHS contribution if it was a nominal fee of around £200? A hospital stay is likely going to cost the public purse more than that. I moved to the US and made damn sure that I had insurance for the 2-3 months before I would get on my wife's insurance.

It still baffles me the resistance to ensuring that people in country are actually legally in country.

 djones520 wrote:
It still baffles me the resistance to ensuring that people in country are actually legally in country.

I don't get it either, and I'm an immigrant

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It still baffles me the resistance to ensuring that people in country are actually legally in country.

I don't get it either, and I'm an immigrant

Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

However, I'm not sure I'd totally buy it.

FWIW: I know many, many RABID Democrats (con and libs) who are opposed to "liberal" immigration reforms. *shrugs* Who knows anymore?

 djones520 wrote:
It still baffles me the resistance to ensuring that people in country are actually legally in country.

yeah... too many bleeding hearts dont know the difference between illegal immigrants, and legal ones.

IMO illegal immigration is basically theft (of public services/ect that other people paid for) and trespassing.

*edit* FWIW im a 1st gen immigrant

I wouldn't say it's the resistance to that so much as simply wondering how much the entire scheme will cost to implement, and when it'll be implemented by.

Theresa May doesn't exactly have a history of competence as Home Secretary, and so I fully understand people's critical reception to such a bill. There's also the fact that no proposed date of implementation has thus far been given, leading me to suspect that it'll be used to hold the public to ransom at the next general election, as is the way of politics. "Vote for us and you get this, that we've likely already spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on." If it's implemented before the election, there'll be huge amounts of early criticism (like most things get) and likely a huge shift towards Labour come the election, at which point the scheme will be scrapped to make way for Labour's own changes, at, yes, you guessed it, taxpayers' expense.

I have extreme difficulty in seeing this as anything but a politically-driven plan, as opposed to one drafted up to actually help the country, but then again I remain critical of every political party here and their motives.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's the resistance to that so much as simply wondering how much the entire scheme will cost to implement, and when it'll be implemented by.

Theresa May doesn't exactly have a history of competence as Home Secretary, and so I fully understand people's critical reception to such a bill. There's also the fact that no proposed date of implementation has thus far been given, leading me to suspect that it'll be used to hold the public to ransom at the next general election, as is the way of politics. "Vote for us and you get this, that we've likely already spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on." If it's implemented before the election, there'll be huge amounts of early criticism (like most things get) and likely a huge shift towards Labour come the election, at which point the scheme will be scrapped to make way for Labour's own changes, at, yes, you guessed it, taxpayers' expense.

I have extreme difficulty in seeing this as anything but a politically-driven plan, as opposed to one drafted up to actually help the country, but then again I remain critical of every political party here and their motives.

Granted, that's a reasonable concern in my opinion. Does the cost of such a system outweigh the costs they put onto the system? I'd doubt it, but it's something to look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's the resistance to that so much as simply wondering how much the entire scheme will cost to implement, and when it'll be implemented by.

Theresa May doesn't exactly have a history of competence as Home Secretary, and so I fully understand people's critical reception to such a bill. There's also the fact that no proposed date of implementation has thus far been given, leading me to suspect that it'll be used to hold the public to ransom at the next general election, as is the way of politics. "Vote for us and you get this, that we've likely already spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on." If it's implemented before the election, there'll be huge amounts of early criticism (like most things get) and likely a huge shift towards Labour come the election, at which point the scheme will be scrapped to make way for Labour's own changes, at, yes, you guessed it, taxpayers' expense.

I have extreme difficulty in seeing this as anything but a politically-driven plan, as opposed to one drafted up to actually help the country, but then again I remain critical of every political party here and their motives.

Granted, that's a reasonable concern in my opinion. Does the cost of such a system outweigh the costs they put onto the system? I'd doubt it, but it's something to look at.

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

However, I'm not sure I'd totally buy it.

FWIW: I know many, many RABID Democrats (con and libs) who are opposed to "liberal" immigration reforms. *shrugs* Who knows anymore?

Because "commonsense" reforms (thank you Jay Carney) obvious mean that we should reward people who break the law by letting them have Green Cards, work authorization, voting rights, and access to public assistance programs that lawful migrants don't, right? Its just common sense people!!!!!

And if "commonsense" arguments don't work then just cry racism

 easysauce wrote:
yeah... too many bleeding hearts dont know the difference between illegal immigrants, and legal ones.

IMO illegal immigration is basically theft (of public services/ect that other people paid for) and trespassing.

*edit* FWIW im a 1st gen immigrant

As a legal migrant I hate it when people deliberately conflate the two

After the absolute shambles that was the NHS database (dreamed up in 2002 by Labour, and then kept going after the coalition victory in 2010) ended up costing the taxpayer several billion pounds not just in implementation costs, but also trying to fix the myriad faults and failures, I'm not exactly trusting of the government's abilities to assess cost vs advantages.

That the NHS database so quickly and easily went tits-up, and these breasts were kept pointing skyward for many years and even into the current government, suggests that it may be simpler to take whatever costs the Government expect, and at least triple them at the same time as halving the expectations of what the scheme would provide.

Nothing inherently objectionable to anything being proposed there. I'm generally a pro immigration sort of fellow, but there still has to be regulation to stop people abusing the system.

Being anti illegal immigration is not the same thing as being anti immigration and decrying those who want to crack down on those who take advantage as 'swivel-eyed Daily Mail-reading Europhobic loons' is just name calling. I'm on the record as absolutely hating that rag of a newspaper.

I like immigrants, I employ allot of them but I do not think the unbridled entry of millions of low skill immigrants to the UK is helpful overall as has bee the case for most of the last two decades.

The idea that we must increase the uk population to out compete Germany has been foolishly implemented and not at all controlled. Any and all brakes that can be put on should. So while Not all of the policies in the OP are workable but I do not mind any that are.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nothing inherently objectionable to anything being proposed there. I'm generally a pro immigration sort of fellow, but there still has to be regulation to stop people abusing the system.

Being anti illegal immigration is not the same thing as being anti immigration and decrying those who want to crack down on those who take advantage as 'swivel-eyed Daily Mail-reading Europhobic loons' is just name calling. I'm on the record as absolutely hating that rag of a newspaper.

Yes, it's just a complete coincidence that there's an almost 1:1 overlap of "people who are 'anti illegal immigration'" and "Daily Mail-reading swivel-eyed loons" right down to the rhetoric they use and the policies they endorse. You can of course substitute an appropriately hysterical redtop for the swivel-eyed of a Labour persuasion, or the Torygraph for those that fancy themselves upper crust.

The issue I have with this legislation, apart from the expense and the competence of those proposing it as Avatar 720 quite correctly pointed out, is that it fails to meet the most basic first step that any legislation should meet: evidence that it's addressing an actual problem. It also fails all the subsequent steps as well, such as "will it address the problem effectively", "will it cost more to implement than the country will benefit from its implementation", "is it as parsimonious in its infringement of civil liberties as is possible while still being effective at its stated aims" and so forth, but as far as I'm concerned those are all irrelevant if it's not even been proven to be necessary in the first place.

Where is the evidence we are being buried under a tide of illegal migrants? I know there are newspaper articles about the "problem", but they are published by the same papers who continually push the concept that the social security system is positively straining under the unbearable weight of massive benefit fraud when in reality fraud accounts for less than 2% of the non-pensions welfare budget, that amount being smaller than the amount of money the system loses due to clerical errors, so their credibility is zero. I know the Home Office themselves claim there are problems, but they're part of a government which has shown itself more than willing to distort the truth and even outright lie in order to justify legislation they were ideologically predisposed to enacting, as well as being both financially irresponsible and giving every indication that they're using "anti illegal immigration" as a cover for the same old racial and ethnic prejudices; or are we forgetting their recent scheme to throw away tons of taxpayer cash to pay for advertising vans to drive around areas of the country with a large population of ethnic minorities featuring their "go home" posters?

But lets imagine that there actually is a problem with illegal migration -and by "problem" I don't mean "it happens", because that's a given, in order to be an actual problem it has to be occurring on a significant enough scale that the existing laws are failing to cope or there is a genuine burden being placed on public services- and consider the legislation itself. You may not think any of it is "objectionable", but a better question to ask is whether or not it will be effective? Consider; when the "UK Border Force" struggle out of their usual Monty Pythonesque levels of competence and actually find a group of illegal migrants, are said illegal migrants typically sporting their own cars? Are they being arrested in their lovely little privately rented flat? Are they earning a nice paycheque that gets PAYE'd into their bank account each month? Or is it not far more often the case that illegal migration on any sort of scale that could actually cause problems in the UK involves groups of people who are trafficked into the country by the same gangs which force them to work for them for virtually no money at all(and that cash-in-hand) and which house them in slum-like conditions.

These measures will barely even make a scratch on actual illegal migration, because the vast majority of that takes place completely "off the books" and is run by criminal operations which are hardly going to be hesitant to forge the odd rental agreement if necessary. What they will do is create a society in which actual migrants, people who have come here legally to make a better life for themselves and who contribute significantly to this country both culturally and economically, will be subjected to constant intrusive bureaucracy at huge cost to the public purse, in the context of what is already an extremely burdensome immigration regime.

This isn't about quelling some mythical tide of illegal migration, it is about a government making policy designed explicitly to appeal to the sort of voter who isn't just "anti illegal immigration", but rather just plain old anti-foreigner, and who would rather there be less of "them" around. To that mindset, an onerous and costly immigration regime which makes legitimate migrants feel unwelcome in this country is desirable for exactly that reason, which is why you won't see them get into their usual fevered hysteria about the cost of government programmes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Click here if you want to lose the will to live.

The Home Office confirmed the bill would:

• Require temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status, to make a contribution to the NHS. A £200 levy has been mentioned as an option.

Ok genuine question, but why shouldn't migrants have to pay an NHS contribution if it was a nominal fee of around £200? A hospital stay is likely going to cost the public purse more than that. I moved to the US and made damn sure that I had insurance for the 2-3 months before I would get on my wife's insurance.

Same reason why you don't make unemployed people and other types of people that don't contribute to the NHS regularly pay that type of fee.

If you can afford it, then you already contribute to the NHS through your regular pay checks and if you can't afford it then the rest of society is supposed to cover the costs for you.

Well this is disappointing.

I though this was about "Papers, please"

PhantomViper wrote:
Same reason why you don't make unemployed people and other types of people that don't contribute to the NHS regularly pay that type of fee.

If you can afford it, then you already contribute to the NHS through your regular pay checks and if you can't afford it then the rest of society is supposed to cover the costs for you.

Those people are called citizens. The government is already under a duty of care to them as they represent these people. But thank you for trying to compare apples with oranges. Also just because a person is unemployed does not mean that they have never contributed to the NHS.

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigrants have absolutely no reason to vote. It's high risk for literally zero reward.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigrants have absolutely no reason to vote. It's high risk for literally zero reward.

But what if, all the sudden, they were granted amnesty and can then vote?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigrants have absolutely no reason to vote. It's high risk for literally zero reward.

The proposal is that they will be given fast track citizenship (again, ahead of legal migrants) because they have lived in the US for X years. So the political calculation is that these illegal immigrants (who are Democrat leaning anyway) will be swung firmly into the Democrat camp and form part of their core demographic.

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

While we're on the topic of "politically correct", FYI, I believe the proper term is "Democratic Party".

Democrat, as used in this manner, is considered an epithet.

Presumably someone as interested and educated on politics is shocked to discover this, so I only bring it up respectfully in the interest of allowing polite discourse to rule the day.

:-D

I love me some immigration. Brings new ideas and cultures into a country. Good! America wouldn't be where it is today without immigration.

That said, legal immigration is great, illegal not so much. I say we try to make it as easy as possible for people to get in legally (as long as they're not fleeing from justice or something), then crack down like a rabid wombat on illegal immigrants.

 Forar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

While we're on the topic of "politically correct", FYI, I believe the proper term is "Democratic Party".

Democrat, as used in this manner, is considered an epithet.

Presumably someone as interested and educated on politics is shocked to discover this, so I only bring it up respectfully in the interest of allowing polite discourse to rule the day.

:-D

I love it when people say that. It's almost always brought up by folks trying to be offended by someone who meant no offense. Which generally falls in line with PC stuff I guess.

 djones520 wrote:
I love it when people say that. It's almost always brought up by folks trying to be offended by someone who meant no offense. Which generally falls in line with PC stuff I guess.

Thank you, I appreciate your support.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigrants have absolutely no reason to vote. It's high risk for literally zero reward.

But what if, all the sudden, they were granted amnesty and can then vote?

What if it rains ice cream? Shouldn't we be issuing everyone ice cream cones?

No politician of either party is going to introduce legislation grant blanket amnesty, and no president is going to sign such a law. Be serious.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So the political calculation is that these illegal immigrants (who are Democrat leaning anyway) will be swung firmly into the Democrat camp and form part of their core demographic.

This mental exercise requires one to presume that an illegal alien is going to risk great and immediate harm to themselves and their families (discovery, deportation) in favor of some hypothetical future legislation which might, years after some future legislation happened and wound its way through the courts, benefit the alien's cohort in ways yet unknown.


This is a made up problem.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Same reason why you don't make unemployed people and other types of people that don't contribute to the NHS regularly pay that type of fee.

If you can afford it, then you already contribute to the NHS through your regular pay checks and if you can't afford it then the rest of society is supposed to cover the costs for you.

Those people are called citizens. The government is already under a duty of care to them as they represent these people. But thank you for trying to compare apples with oranges. Also just because a person is unemployed does not mean that they have never contributed to the NHS.

Are you American or British? Because that sounds like a very American position for an European to have...

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing human beings with human beings, just because they aren't "legal" doesn't mean that they don't have the right to the same standard of care as everyone else. Also some people that are unemployed have never contributed to the NHS, neither did children for that matter, do you plan to enforce this fee on them as well?

Sigh, nasty immigrants ruining the green lands of Great Britain.


You have to be serious though, we live on a bloody island, surely it cant be that hard to make sure that people we dont want getting on the Island dont get on it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the politically incorrect answer is that these immigrants are viewed as primarily voters for the Democrat Party.

Illegal immigrants have absolutely no reason to vote. It's high risk for literally zero reward.

The proposal is that they will be given fast track citizenship (again, ahead of legal migrants) because they have lived in the US for X years. So the political calculation is that these illegal immigrants (who are Democrat leaning anyway) will be swung firmly into the Democrat camp and form part of their core demographic.

Isn't this about UK immigration, not US immigration? What on earth are you an whembly on about re: US democratic party when this is a UK topic?

Yeah, I'm confused; the article is about a proposed UK law but 3/4 of the comments are about US issues...ok......

 djones520 wrote:
It still baffles me the resistance to ensuring that people in country are actually legally in country.

+1

I will summarize what would be a long rant in saying that - If borders and immigration laws aren't enforced, then you have surrendered your sovereignty and will soon lose the authority to enforce any laws.

 agnosto wrote:
Yeah, I'm confused; the article is about a proposed UK law but 3/4 of the comments are about US issues...ok......

Eh... I re-read the thread from the beginning... sorry for the de-rail ya'll.