Digital Spy

ItJustMyOpinion · 02-07-2013, 08:27

Quote:

Agreed. Key word bogus of course.
The way the government is doing it now is tackling all education and international marriages.

You forget the small matter of discrimination being illegal. If one section of society are doing something they want to stop, they must apply the counter measures to everyone.

Foreign students at quality universities has increased. Its the east end language colleges that have been shut down. The decrease from India is most likely due to the student route being used as a work route. Now they can't use it as a way in to Britain for work as under the last Labour government, they will just find another country. The remainder will probably be the genuine ones.

ItJustMyOpinion · 02-07-2013, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

Hear hear.
A friend of mine, British born white guy, university educated, decent job, has a girlfriend who happens to be from Hong Kong. No sinister plan to flood the country with oriental people there, but thanks to the government constantly needing to bend over backwards to pander to those who are paranoid about immigration he's having a complete bitch of a time trying to be together with her.
We live in a globalised world, people don't always fall for someone from their home village any more.

http://www.expatforum.com/britain/ti...bers-drop.html

http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301

Quote:

Originally Posted by expatforum

The number of visas for non European Union family members reached a peak of 70,000 in 2006. It has since declined and is at its lowest levels for many years. The top country for all family visas in 2012 was Pakistan at around 7,500. This was followed by India at 3,300 with Bangladesh, Nepal and the United States all between 2,000 and 3,000 visas.

In 2006 over 53,000 visas were issued to partners to enter the UK, some gaining immediate settlement. It has since declined to 35,000 in 2011. There was a further decline to 31,000 in 2012 that may reflect the impact of the new salary threshold for overseas spouses. The top country for partner visas in 2012 was Pakistan with almost 7,000, followed by India with 2,900, Bangladesh with 2,000 and the United States with 1,800 grants.

It is obvious that we are not just talking about young British backpackers meeting the love of their life while exploring the world, whose family probably haven't married a foreigner for generations and just want to be together.

People such as you friend are inconvenienced because of the the cultural and economic lifestyle decisions of others and how that affects controlling immigration numbers and integration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

Well duh.
Asked a blank question "Do you want more unskilled workers in the country" of course people will say no. Who wants that?
Ask more reasonable questions like "should people be free to marry and be together with foreigners, even if they're not university educated" and you'll get very different answers.

You could also ask them what they think of people marrying every generation to people in the old country, or whether they think those that bringing over foreign spouses should let the tax payer pick up the bill. I guarantee you that whatever you ask the public I can ask a counter question before they answer, so don't think you would always get the answer you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

You realise that's effectively sending a message that they've bought the right to stay in the UK as long as they like?
Do you not see how its really encouraging any poor people who want to visit for a few months to try and work illegally while they're here?
Can you not see how it is causing a major inconvenience and really putting off people who just want to visit for a few weeks?

The main point of the bonds is to cover the expense incurred by the border agency in locating, detaining and deporting over stayers and any cost to the NHS or public services etc. If they are that poor they won't be able to afford it. Its no inconvenience, just include a cheque with their visa application at our embassy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

Really, this was a stupid, stupid plan. Whatever your views on immigration you have to see that.

What I see is a system that was being abused and the best way to deal with that is to change the rules to favour immigration control over the migrant.

Josquius · 02-07-2013, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

http://www.expatforum.com/britain/ti...bers-drop.html

http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301

It is obvious that we are not just talking about young British backpackers meeting the love of their life while exploring the world, whose family probably haven't married a foreigner for generations and just want to be together.

People such as you friend are inconvenienced because of the the cultural and economic lifestyle decisions of others and how that affects controlling immigration numbers and integration.

See, the thing is the government designs anti-immigrant policies to target the troublesome sorts and appeal to you guys but in the process of doing that everyone completely ignores the damage it would do to people who aren't doing anything wrong.

These wealth restrictions for instance. You might say it stops them bringing over cousins they've decided to marry just to get into the UK...do you now think how maybe it is discriminating against innocent poor people? It really is applying one law to the poor and one law to the rich. Things shouldn't work that way.

The true best way to stop Asian Brits marrying people from back home, as you're so scared about, is to increase their quality of life and integrate them more into mainstream British society. Carrots not sticks.

Quote:

You could also ask them what they think of people marrying every generation to people in the old country, or whether they think those that bringing over foreign spouses should let the tax payer pick up the bill. I guarantee you that whatever you ask the public I can ask a counter question before they answer, so don't think you would always get the answer you want.

Well yes, that's exactly my point. Those questions you're proposing are biased and will give obvious answers if they're blank yes or no questions.

Quote:

The main point of the bonds is to cover the expense incurred by the border agency in locating, detaining and deporting over stayers and any cost to the NHS or public services etc. If they are that poor they won't be able to afford it. Its no inconvenience, just include a cheque with their visa application at our embassy.

So we punish law abiding people to punish other foreigners who don't obey the law?

Quote:

What I see is a system that was being abused and the best way to deal with that is to change the rules to favour immigration control over the migrant.

Change the rules?
Thats the way the rules already are.
Its a disgusting myth that Britain somehow has open door immigration as it patently doesn't, its one of the hardest countries to migrate to there is.

Nick1966 · 02-07-2013, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFang

...Cameron and the Tories ... will not shut the borders.

Exactly why do Mr Cameron and the Conservatives want an "open door policy" on borders. They must have some reasoning behind their policy.

jmclaugh · 02-07-2013, 10:34

Well if they actually kept track of those coming here on visas and made sure they were able to remove them if they outstayed them the idea of bonds wouldn't be required.

Cameron however is giving mixed messages on immigration and still seems to be of the view economic growth in developing markets is somehow linked to immigration from those markets.

trevgo · 02-07-2013, 10:34

The only thing wrong with the policy was the ridiculously low sum of £3,000.

Pathetic decision by Cameron.

ItJustMyOpinion · 02-07-2013, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

See, the thing is the government designs anti-immigrant policies to target the troublesome sorts and appeal to you guys but in the process of doing that everyone completely ignores the damage it would do to people who aren't doing anything wrong.

These wealth restrictions for instance. You might say it stops them bringing over cousins they've decided to marry just to get into the UK...do you now think how maybe it is discriminating against innocent poor people? It really is applying one law to the poor and one law to the rich. Things shouldn't work that way.

As I keep explaining the government is not able to discriminate, its against the law. They have no choice but to apply it equally to everyone, even though according to the graph, 'Figure 3. Partner Visa Grants, Top Ten 2005-2012' http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 there is a complete disproportionate use of spouse visas and settlements by ethnic minorities.

There is no other way, any attempt to be selective and Keith Vaz will be screaming racism and discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

The true best way to stop Asian Brits marrying people from back home, as you're so scared about, is to increase their quality of life and integrate them more into mainstream British society. Carrots not sticks.

How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

Well yes, that's exactly my point. Those questions you're proposing are biased and will give obvious answers if they're blank yes or no questions.

No more biased than not pointing out all the facts to the public and letting them decide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

So we punish law abiding people to punish other foreigners who don't obey the law?

They are just a deposit, law abiding people will have their money returned when they leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josquius

Change the rules?
Thats the way the rules already are.
Its a disgusting myth that Britain somehow has open door immigration as it patently doesn't, its one of the hardest countries to migrate to there is.

Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant.

WhiteFang · 02-07-2013, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick1966

Exactly why do Mr Cameron and the Conservatives want an "open door policy" on borders. They must have some reasoning behind their policy.

I just think its their economic policies and money / trade issues taking over common sense.Cant understand the Conservatives as they seem to put money before anything else.

smudges dad · 02-07-2013, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder.
Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant.

Some of your points are amusingly absurd.

Human rights work in EVERYONE'S favour, including yours

Josquius · 03-07-2013, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

As I keep explaining the government is not able to discriminate, its against the law. They have no choice but to apply it equally to everyone, even though according to the graph, 'Figure 3. Partner Visa Grants, Top Ten 2005-2012' http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 there is a complete disproportionate use of spouse visas and settlements by ethnic minorities.

There is no other way, any attempt to be selective and Keith Vaz will be screaming racism and discrimination.

So because you can't discriminate (why would you want to?) you instead hurt everyone?
I'm not sure I like that conclusion. The more reasonale way is to not pick on anyone.

Quote:

How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder.

It isn't self imposed. Its imposed by a mixture of the ideology of fear us vs. them that the right is fond of spreading and the crappy economic situation they find themselves in, which as in poor white areas leads to a it of a siege mentality.

Quote:

No more biased than not pointing out all the facts to the public and letting them decide.

Which I support. Yet so many people are woefully unaware of the facts and seem to think its easy for anyone to just up and move to the UK and start collecting benefits. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Quote:

They are just a deposit, law abiding people will have their money returned when they leave.

There mere fact of the deposit is making things annoying for them and treating them like second class people.
£3000 isn't a lot of money for wealthy Indians but for middle class Indians it is still quite a lot of money.

Quote:

Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant.

Am I misreading or are you saying we go back to the Victorian age and do away with human rights and start treating children breaking the law as we would adults?

ItJustMyOpinion · 10-07-2013, 20:12

Here's one for Styker, apparently Some academics from Middlesex University have worked out that the £18,600 limit will actually cost us more taxpayers money, rather than saving it.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...s-immigrationl

Quote:

Originally Posted by politics.co.uk

The UK will lose £850 million over ten years as a result of new visa restrictions on foreign spouses of British citizens, new research suggests. Analysis of the government's impact assessment from Middlesex University strongly suggests income requirements on foreign spouses could be putting an additional burden on the taxpayer. "It appears the government got its sums wrong when designing this policy," said Dr Helena Wray, from the School of Law at Middlesex University, who co-authored the research. "When the cost-benefit calculations for this policy in the impact assessment are properly carried out, the figures actually show that the income requirement could cost the public purse £850 million over ten years. "It will not reduce the benefits bill; in fact, it is likely to increase it as single people are more likely to claim benefits than those living with a partner."

Easy to claim, how about some facts.

Quote:

But the research shows that non-EEA foreign spouses, who had the right to work but not to claim benefits, were never a burden on the welfare state. Researchers pointed out that Home Office statistics only counted the cost of services to migrants but excluded their overall economic contribution, in a move which went directly against the advice of the migration advisory committee. This cooking of the statistics hid the economic effects of the policy, according to analysts.

So have they factored in the £5,000 cost per child, per year when they start their families? If there economic contribution is so high, how come they don't even earn £18,600? Also when do they stop counting them as migrants, when they get settlement? They should count the entire life of the foreign spouse and 50% of their children until they are adults.

Quote:

Government figures also fail to take into account the difference in welfare claims depending on marital status. Single parents, for example, are more likely to draw on state support if they are alone than if their partner is given the right to work in the UK. Once a non-EEA partner is in the UK and providing the family with two potential incomes, the family unit is more likely to earn above the cut-off point for welfare.

A quarter of the family migration foreign spouses are from Pakistan. As far as I know culturally and religiously they are expected to get married first, live together as a married couple and then have children in the traditional way.

Besides if they are both working whose looking after the children?

Plus won't many people just emigrate.

Ethel_Fred · 10-07-2013, 20:17

Quote:

This cooking of the statistics

Doesn't sound like this government

ItJustMyOpinion · 10-07-2013, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethel_Fred

Doesn't sound like this government

Well we don't know the university academics haven't rigged their results. What they consider valid costs of migrants and what I consider valid costs may not be the same thing. How many did they ask, who did they ask?

ItJustMyOpinion · 10-07-2013, 20:42

Response from the government.

http://www.expressandstar.com/busine...shake-up-cost/

Quote:

Originally Posted by expressandstar

But the Home Office rejected the report's findings. It said the £850 million figure referred to in the report was "incorrect" as it included the taxes paid by migrant partners, but not their costs to public services, and therefore overestimated the positive effect of family migrants.

"We do not accept the conclusions reached by Middlesex University," a Home Office spokesman said. "We estimate that the minimum income threshold, set following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, will benefit the taxpayer by £660 million over 10 years.

"This includes both the expected savings in public services and the reduction in taxes paid by migrant spouses and partners".

So they did not deduct the British citizens costs from their tax's.

Anyway do foreign spouses really start working straight away and pay tax's, or do they start a family?

The good news is in the figures though.

Quote:

Home Office estimates suggested the policy would reduce family visas by 17,800 a year.

Recent figures suggest that guess was, if anything, an underestimate. There has been a 58% drop in overall applications, including an 83.6% drop in the number of visas issued to male partners of a British spouse.

Styker · 10-07-2013, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

Here's one for Styker, apparently Some academics from Middlesex University have worked out that the £18,600 limit will actually cost us more taxpayers money, rather than saving it.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...s-immigrationl

Easy to claim, how about some facts.

So have they factored in the £5,000 cost per child, per year when they start their families? If there economic contribution is so high, how come they don't even earn £18,600? Also when do they stop counting them as migrants, when they get settlement? They should count the entire life of the foreign spouse and 50% of their children until they are adults.

A quarter of the family migration foreign spouses are from Pakistan. As far as I know culturally and religiously they are expected to get married first, live together as a married couple and then have children in the traditional way.

Besides if they are both working whose looking after the children?

Plus won't many people just emigrate.

Like I've always said, these bunch of rules are all about reducing the immigration numbers, nothing else. The Tories do not care how and who they do over to get to their target on this either imho.

@ the Tories on that!

As for your questions on money, how long was this study looking at on financial contribution from married couples with one half being foreign? A year, or longer?

Over years the foreign spouse may well start working, but in any case, families with heritage to the indian sub continent do support each other generally and finacially, especially when it comes to marriage, the cost of marriage, setting up of a home and in business etc etc. The Tories do not seem to want to hear about that, its all about the cutting of the numbers hence why they won't allow self employed people to "get round" the minimum income rule by having or be gifted 16 thousand in savings or more for at least 6 months but they do allow that to people who are employed by a company. Could that be because again, many peeople with heritage to the indian sub continet are in self employed positions?

02-07-2013, 08:27	#51
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Agreed. Key word bogus of course. The way the government is doing it now is tackling all education and international marriages. You forget the small matter of discrimination being illegal. If one section of society are doing something they want to stop, they must apply the counter measures to everyone. Foreign students at quality universities has increased. Its the east end language colleges that have been shut down. The decrease from India is most likely due to the student route being used as a work route. Now they can't use it as a way in to Britain for work as under the last Labour government, they will just find another country. The remainder will probably be the genuine ones.

10-07-2013, 20:12	#61
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Revealed: The financial cost of Theresa May's immigration policy Here's one for Styker, apparently Some academics from Middlesex University have worked out that the £18,600 limit will actually cost us more taxpayers money, rather than saving it. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...s-immigrationl Quote: Originally Posted by politics.co.uk The UK will lose £850 million over ten years as a result of new visa restrictions on foreign spouses of British citizens, new research suggests. Analysis of the government's impact assessment from Middlesex University strongly suggests income requirements on foreign spouses could be putting an additional burden on the taxpayer. "It appears the government got its sums wrong when designing this policy," said Dr Helena Wray, from the School of Law at Middlesex University, who co-authored the research. "When the cost-benefit calculations for this policy in the impact assessment are properly carried out, the figures actually show that the income requirement could cost the public purse £850 million over ten years. "It will not reduce the benefits bill; in fact, it is likely to increase it as single people are more likely to claim benefits than those living with a partner." Easy to claim, how about some facts. Quote: But the research shows that non-EEA foreign spouses, who had the right to work but not to claim benefits, were never a burden on the welfare state. Researchers pointed out that Home Office statistics only counted the cost of services to migrants but excluded their overall economic contribution, in a move which went directly against the advice of the migration advisory committee. This cooking of the statistics hid the economic effects of the policy, according to analysts. So have they factored in the £5,000 cost per child, per year when they start their families? If there economic contribution is so high, how come they don't even earn £18,600? Also when do they stop counting them as migrants, when they get settlement? They should count the entire life of the foreign spouse and 50% of their children until they are adults. Quote: Government figures also fail to take into account the difference in welfare claims depending on marital status. Single parents, for example, are more likely to draw on state support if they are alone than if their partner is given the right to work in the UK. Once a non-EEA partner is in the UK and providing the family with two potential incomes, the family unit is more likely to earn above the cut-off point for welfare. A quarter of the family migration foreign spouses are from Pakistan. As far as I know culturally and religiously they are expected to get married first, live together as a married couple and then have children in the traditional way. Besides if they are both working whose looking after the children? Plus won't many people just emigrate.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Digital Spy

DS Forums

Cameron stops UK migrant £3,000 bond plan

02-07-2013, 08:49	#52
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Hear hear. A friend of mine, British born white guy, university educated, decent job, has a girlfriend who happens to be from Hong Kong. No sinister plan to flood the country with oriental people there, but thanks to the government constantly needing to bend over backwards to pander to those who are paranoid about immigration he's having a complete bitch of a time trying to be together with her. We live in a globalised world, people don't always fall for someone from their home village any more. http://www.expatforum.com/britain/ti...bers-drop.html http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 Quote: Originally Posted by expatforum The number of visas for non European Union family members reached a peak of 70,000 in 2006. It has since declined and is at its lowest levels for many years. The top country for all family visas in 2012 was Pakistan at around 7,500. This was followed by India at 3,300 with Bangladesh, Nepal and the United States all between 2,000 and 3,000 visas. In 2006 over 53,000 visas were issued to partners to enter the UK, some gaining immediate settlement. It has since declined to 35,000 in 2011. There was a further decline to 31,000 in 2012 that may reflect the impact of the new salary threshold for overseas spouses. The top country for partner visas in 2012 was Pakistan with almost 7,000, followed by India with 2,900, Bangladesh with 2,000 and the United States with 1,800 grants. It is obvious that we are not just talking about young British backpackers meeting the love of their life while exploring the world, whose family probably haven't married a foreigner for generations and just want to be together. People such as you friend are inconvenienced because of the the cultural and economic lifestyle decisions of others and how that affects controlling immigration numbers and integration. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Well duh. Asked a blank question "Do you want more unskilled workers in the country" of course people will say no. Who wants that? Ask more reasonable questions like "should people be free to marry and be together with foreigners, even if they're not university educated" and you'll get very different answers. You could also ask them what they think of people marrying every generation to people in the old country, or whether they think those that bringing over foreign spouses should let the tax payer pick up the bill. I guarantee you that whatever you ask the public I can ask a counter question before they answer, so don't think you would always get the answer you want. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius You realise that's effectively sending a message that they've bought the right to stay in the UK as long as they like? Do you not see how its really encouraging any poor people who want to visit for a few months to try and work illegally while they're here? Can you not see how it is causing a major inconvenience and really putting off people who just want to visit for a few weeks? The main point of the bonds is to cover the expense incurred by the border agency in locating, detaining and deporting over stayers and any cost to the NHS or public services etc. If they are that poor they won't be able to afford it. Its no inconvenience, just include a cheque with their visa application at our embassy. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Really, this was a stupid, stupid plan. Whatever your views on immigration you have to see that. What I see is a system that was being abused and the best way to deal with that is to change the rules to favour immigration control over the migrant.

02-07-2013, 10:20	#53
Josquius Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,349	Quote: Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion http://www.expatforum.com/britain/ti...bers-drop.html http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 It is obvious that we are not just talking about young British backpackers meeting the love of their life while exploring the world, whose family probably haven't married a foreigner for generations and just want to be together. People such as you friend are inconvenienced because of the the cultural and economic lifestyle decisions of others and how that affects controlling immigration numbers and integration. See, the thing is the government designs anti-immigrant policies to target the troublesome sorts and appeal to you guys but in the process of doing that everyone completely ignores the damage it would do to people who aren't doing anything wrong. These wealth restrictions for instance. You might say it stops them bringing over cousins they've decided to marry just to get into the UK...do you now think how maybe it is discriminating against innocent poor people? It really is applying one law to the poor and one law to the rich. Things shouldn't work that way. The true best way to stop Asian Brits marrying people from back home, as you're so scared about, is to increase their quality of life and integrate them more into mainstream British society. Carrots not sticks. Quote: You could also ask them what they think of people marrying every generation to people in the old country, or whether they think those that bringing over foreign spouses should let the tax payer pick up the bill. I guarantee you that whatever you ask the public I can ask a counter question before they answer, so don't think you would always get the answer you want. Well yes, that's exactly my point. Those questions you're proposing are biased and will give obvious answers if they're blank yes or no questions. Quote: The main point of the bonds is to cover the expense incurred by the border agency in locating, detaining and deporting over stayers and any cost to the NHS or public services etc. If they are that poor they won't be able to afford it. Its no inconvenience, just include a cheque with their visa application at our embassy. So we punish law abiding people to punish other foreigners who don't obey the law? Quote: What I see is a system that was being abused and the best way to deal with that is to change the rules to favour immigration control over the migrant. Change the rules? Thats the way the rules already are. Its a disgusting myth that Britain somehow has open door immigration as it patently doesn't, its one of the hardest countries to migrate to there is.

02-07-2013, 10:29	#54
Nick1966 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: North London Posts: 12,586	Quote: Originally Posted by WhiteFang ...Cameron and the Tories ... will not shut the borders. Exactly why do Mr Cameron and the Conservatives want an "open door policy" on borders. They must have some reasoning behind their policy.

02-07-2013, 10:34	#55
jmclaugh Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 34,181	Well if they actually kept track of those coming here on visas and made sure they were able to remove them if they outstayed them the idea of bonds wouldn't be required. Cameron however is giving mixed messages on immigration and still seems to be of the view economic growth in developing markets is somehow linked to immigration from those markets.

02-07-2013, 10:34	#56
trevgo Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Leafy London Posts: 11,687	The only thing wrong with the policy was the ridiculously low sum of £3,000. Pathetic decision by Cameron.

02-07-2013, 11:05	#57
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius See, the thing is the government designs anti-immigrant policies to target the troublesome sorts and appeal to you guys but in the process of doing that everyone completely ignores the damage it would do to people who aren't doing anything wrong. These wealth restrictions for instance. You might say it stops them bringing over cousins they've decided to marry just to get into the UK...do you now think how maybe it is discriminating against innocent poor people? It really is applying one law to the poor and one law to the rich. Things shouldn't work that way. As I keep explaining the government is not able to discriminate, its against the law. They have no choice but to apply it equally to everyone, even though according to the graph, 'Figure 3. Partner Visa Grants, Top Ten 2005-2012' http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 there is a complete disproportionate use of spouse visas and settlements by ethnic minorities. There is no other way, any attempt to be selective and Keith Vaz will be screaming racism and discrimination. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius The true best way to stop Asian Brits marrying people from back home, as you're so scared about, is to increase their quality of life and integrate them more into mainstream British society. Carrots not sticks. How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Well yes, that's exactly my point. Those questions you're proposing are biased and will give obvious answers if they're blank yes or no questions. No more biased than not pointing out all the facts to the public and letting them decide. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius So we punish law abiding people to punish other foreigners who don't obey the law? They are just a deposit, law abiding people will have their money returned when they leave. Quote: Originally Posted by Josquius Change the rules? Thats the way the rules already are. Its a disgusting myth that Britain somehow has open door immigration as it patently doesn't, its one of the hardest countries to migrate to there is. Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant.

02-07-2013, 11:11	#58
WhiteFang Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Narnia Posts: 3,396	Quote: Originally Posted by Nick1966 Exactly why do Mr Cameron and the Conservatives want an "open door policy" on borders. They must have some reasoning behind their policy. I just think its their economic policies and money / trade issues taking over common sense.Cant understand the Conservatives as they seem to put money before anything else.

02-07-2013, 11:15	#59
smudges dad Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort William and Aberdeen Posts: 12,930	Quote: Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder. Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant. Some of your points are amusingly absurd. Human rights work in EVERYONE'S favour, including yours

03-07-2013, 01:58	#60
Josquius Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,349	Quote: Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion As I keep explaining the government is not able to discriminate, its against the law. They have no choice but to apply it equally to everyone, even though according to the graph, 'Figure 3. Partner Visa Grants, Top Ten 2005-2012' http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/br...r/document/301 there is a complete disproportionate use of spouse visas and settlements by ethnic minorities. There is no other way, any attempt to be selective and Keith Vaz will be screaming racism and discrimination. So because you can't discriminate (why would you want to?) you instead hurt everyone? I'm not sure I like that conclusion. The more reasonale way is to not pick on anyone. Quote: How do we do that? It is chain migration that is damaging integration. Breaking the link with the old country will make self imposed segregation much harder. It isn't self imposed. Its imposed by a mixture of the ideology of fear us vs. them that the right is fond of spreading and the crappy economic situation they find themselves in, which as in poor white areas leads to a it of a siege mentality. Quote: No more biased than not pointing out all the facts to the public and letting them decide. Which I support. Yet so many people are woefully unaware of the facts and seem to think its easy for anyone to just up and move to the UK and start collecting benefits. This couldn't be further from the truth. Quote: They are just a deposit, law abiding people will have their money returned when they leave. There mere fact of the deposit is making things annoying for them and treating them like second class people. £3000 isn't a lot of money for wealthy Indians but for middle class Indians it is still quite a lot of money. Quote: Things like human rights, no detention of minors, interference from the foreign office, work in the favour of the migrant. Am I misreading or are you saying we go back to the Victorian age and do away with human rights and start treating children breaking the law as we would adults?

10-07-2013, 20:17	#62
Ethel_Fred Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 22,775	Quote: This cooking of the statistics Doesn't sound like this government

10-07-2013, 20:22	#63
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Quote: Originally Posted by Ethel_Fred Doesn't sound like this government Well we don't know the university academics haven't rigged their results. What they consider valid costs of migrants and what I consider valid costs may not be the same thing. How many did they ask, who did they ask?

10-07-2013, 20:42	#64
ItJustMyOpinion Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 15,825	Response from the government. http://www.expressandstar.com/busine...shake-up-cost/ Quote: Originally Posted by expressandstar But the Home Office rejected the report's findings. It said the £850 million figure referred to in the report was "incorrect" as it included the taxes paid by migrant partners, but not their costs to public services, and therefore overestimated the positive effect of family migrants. "We do not accept the conclusions reached by Middlesex University," a Home Office spokesman said. "We estimate that the minimum income threshold, set following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, will benefit the taxpayer by £660 million over 10 years. "This includes both the expected savings in public services and the reduction in taxes paid by migrant spouses and partners". So they did not deduct the British citizens costs from their tax's. Anyway do foreign spouses really start working straight away and pay tax's, or do they start a family? The good news is in the figures though. Quote: Home Office estimates suggested the policy would reduce family visas by 17,800 a year. Recent figures suggest that guess was, if anything, an underestimate. There has been a 58% drop in overall applications, including an 83.6% drop in the number of visas issued to male partners of a British spouse.

10-07-2013, 21:47	#65
Styker Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 18,641	Quote: Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion Here's one for Styker, apparently Some academics from Middlesex University have worked out that the £18,600 limit will actually cost us more taxpayers money, rather than saving it. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...s-immigrationl Easy to claim, how about some facts. So have they factored in the £5,000 cost per child, per year when they start their families? If there economic contribution is so high, how come they don't even earn £18,600? Also when do they stop counting them as migrants, when they get settlement? They should count the entire life of the foreign spouse and 50% of their children until they are adults. A quarter of the family migration foreign spouses are from Pakistan. As far as I know culturally and religiously they are expected to get married first, live together as a married couple and then have children in the traditional way. Besides if they are both working whose looking after the children? Plus won't many people just emigrate. Like I've always said, these bunch of rules are all about reducing the immigration numbers, nothing else. The Tories do not care how and who they do over to get to their target on this either imho. @ the Tories on that! As for your questions on money, how long was this study looking at on financial contribution from married couples with one half being foreign? A year, or longer? Over years the foreign spouse may well start working, but in any case, families with heritage to the indian sub continent do support each other generally and finacially, especially when it comes to marriage, the cost of marriage, setting up of a home and in business etc etc. The Tories do not seem to want to hear about that, its all about the cutting of the numbers hence why they won't allow self employed people to "get round" the minimum income rule by having or be gifted 16 thousand in savings or more for at least 6 months but they do allow that to people who are employed by a company. Could that be because again, many peeople with heritage to the indian sub continet are in self employed positions?