That's fair enough!

I've always believe this proposal will only target Tier 2 migrants. I also don't expect this new rules to affect those already in the UK looking forward to settlement.

tunnytox:

I've always believe this proposal will only target Tier 2 migrants. I also don't expect this new rules to affect those already in the UK looking forward to settlement.

It will not achieve much interns of reducing immigration figure, they will only increase more cases of sham marriages and other illegal means of staying in the UK

justwise:

It will not achieve much interns of reducing immigration figure, they will only increase more cases of sham marriages and other illegal means of staying in the UK

Very true! but if that is what rocks their boat at the moment then so be it.

tunnytox:

Very true! but if that is what rocks their boat at the moment then so be it.

All their ant-immigration policies have failed, this is about to be added to the list. How many pple are still in detention centers they can't even deport? Do they have the actual figure of illegal immigrants living in the UK?

Targeting immigrants with skills, cutting public spending like mad, companies closing, not creating jobs, number of pple on unemployment benefit increasing? What has the Tory govt done since they came to power apart from blaming Labour for everything?

@Justwise

Just don't be ridiculous, if this topic is beyond u just log off. For pple like you every thing is seen as black and

white, just read from pple making meaningful contribution and stop making a fool of urself.

This is my last reply to your silly comments.

Why are you always emotional. Sometimes you express yourself like a pregnant woman full of emotions and

other times you appear Logical. Define "meaningful". If you can't express yourself with facts on forums most

of the time, better go where you belong. It is a free world, everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions

my friend. I do not see the world in white and black. I am only stating the obvious and facts. At the end of the

day, I am just being pragmatic.

The way you approach issues and distort viewpoints shows that you embody the characteristics of an Egoist who claims to know Everything. You do not like to be challenged neither do you like your views to be critically analyzed. If you cannot stand constructive criticism based on facts. Then you had better stick to what you know best, that is chasing scammers and be careful there.

My friend, your Reality is a result of False Consciousness.

justwise:

All their ant-immigration policies have failed, this is about to be added to the list. How many pple are still in detention centers they can't even deport? Do they have the actual figure of illegal immigrants living in the UK?

I think it's a bit too early to say the policies have failed - the work permit limits have just been applied, and the effects on student visas, bringing in dependants and so on will also take a while to be felt.

The changes around settlement affect those who went to the UK in 2011 - it will take at least 4-5 years to see if the setttlement numbers go down or not.

The issues surrounding detention centers and the like are quite separate and do not really account for the bulk of the immigration into the country.

Targeting immigrants with skills, cutting public spending like mad, companies closing, not creating jobs, number of pple on unemployment benefit increasing? What has the Tory govt done since they came to power apart from blaming Labour for everything?

The government is facing serious issues, but nevertheless if over a third of the population regard immigration as a serious concern it would be foolish not to address it. While not pleasant news for intending immigrants, from the perspective of a UK citizen, some of whom have been kicked out of jobs due to unscrupulous immigration (e.g. Indian companies flooding the UK with intercompany transfers), this is a necessary modification to protect their own interests.

@debosky

Good analysis

Give that guy who claim to be "JustWise" some lecture. Too bad, he is not so analytical.

debosky:

I think it's a bit too early to say the policies have failed - the work permit limits have just been applied, and the effects on student visas, bringing in dependants and so on will also take a while to be felt.

The changes around settlement affect those who went to the UK in 2011 - it will take at least 4-5 years to see if the setttlement numbers go down or not.

The issues surrounding detention centers and the like are quite separate and do not really account for the bulk of the immigration into the country.

The government is facing serious issues, but nevertheless if over a third of the population regard immigration as a serious concern it would be foolish not to address it. While not pleasant news for intending immigrants, from the perspective of a UK citizen, some of whom have been kicked out of jobs due to unscrupulous immigration (e.g. Indian companies flooding the UK with intercompany transfers), this is a necessary modification to protect their own interests.

I don't know if you remember we had this same discussion on immigration policies last yr here and since then the immigration figures hasn't reduced neither has the unemployment figure gone down.

Yes the govt is facing a serious issues and there are other things more than half of the population are crying out for a change. . e.g. the abuse of human right act by foreign criminals, action on banks who actually brought the economy to its knees , ridiculous prison sentences given to rapist, murders and other hard core criminals, has anything done? Nope. Kicking on Immigrants is a soft touch for boneless politicians who are looking for easy way out and just grabbing headlines.

I'm glad that you pointed out the issue of inter-company transfers because that will bring in even more immigrant workers from India and other places since the immigration policies did not affect them.

Like i said before. . they are hitting on the wrong group of immigrants.

@Debosky

I still don't agree with it and those figures are very dodgy. An analysis hasn't been made of how many of those who applied are actually working and contributing to the society, if I'm not mistaken only about a 3rd of those who applied actually made it through.

[Quote]
allowing Tier 2 migrants who do not switch into a settlement route to stay for a maximum of five years with the expectation that they and any dependants will leave at the end of that time [/quote]

This is the particular part I find to be very unfair and it will definitely discourage a lot of the skilled people they need. How can someone come to a country and work, bring his family and then you tell him he has to go after 5 years? what kinda 5 years working holiday is that and who will come with such a rule in place? It would be much better never to allow people come at all in the first instance rather than such a slavish rule.

Debo, this is silly there is no other name for it. I am on Tier 1 and I know the stress that goes with it and you need certain breaks which some people never get but if you knew the score from the beginning you get to grips with it but that is because you see a light at the end of the tunnel if you strive hard and yu can always cut your losses at certain stages in the process. With this kind of immigration policy, no skilled people will come I can assure you and that is no scare mongering but the desperate who don't have much to lose will keep trying their luck anyway so I definitely see these rules being changed after much damage has been done to the system.

The truth is that the influx of people taking these so called 'jobs' are mostly from the EU, every figure I know backs that up. I know a friend who started out in Tech Support 2 when he arrived and is now a Core Network Engineer in the 2nd largest company by Broadband penetration while most of the EU migrants I shared house with on arriving are the ones taking all the student jobs of old like waiting, stacking shelves, hotel porter, security and such that used to be available. Not boasting but if you count 100 EU migrants to the UK, yu'll struggle to get one who can hold the position I currently hold.   If someone is working and contributing to society then you shouldn't be limiting how long they can stay when some people can stroll in and start collecting benefits almost immediately without lifting a finger.

I agree it is their country but it is scare mongering that would make a country implement such a silly immigration policy, if those proposals see the light of day, the UK will suffer for it and badly too.
I am more worried because I'm also a stakeholder in the country, my NI and tax might increase or I might have hospital staff shortage on the NHS when these chickens come home to roost particularly with the expected 2.5b bill expected to be picked up with the EU court ruling on the benefit system. I am not afraid cos my permanent residency might be affected NO it cannot, I'm already thinking beyond that.

My money is being used to bail out Greece, Ireland and greedy bankers and they now want to prevent more people like me to come and carry the burden? while some silly euro policies allow some idiots to just stroll in and start collecting money twiddling their thumbs adding to the problems and you expect me to be happy?

justwise:

I don't know if you remember we had this same discussion on immigration policies last yr here and since then the immigration figures hasn't reduced neither has the unemployment figure gone down.

I agree - like I said, it will take more than a year for immigration to come down - the increases currently being seen are a result of rules set up in the early 2000's, so it's unrealistic to expect a sudden change within a year. Most of the changes take a longer time frame to take effect and we will need to wait and see.

Unemployment is being affected by a myriad of factors so we can't really pin the high numbers solely on immigration either.

Yes the govt is facing a serious issues and there are other things more than half of the population are crying out for a change. . e.g. the abuse of human right act by foreign criminals, action on banks who actually brought the economy to its knees , ridiculous prison sentences given to despoiler, murders and other hard core criminals, has anything done? Nope. Kicking on Immigrants is a soft touch for boneless politicians who are looking for easy way out and just grabbing headlines.

You probably have valid points in there. However, many of those issues are outside the direct control of the government - court cases/sentences, banking reform (more internationally driven) and so on. It is inevitable that the government will apply it's resources on to areas where it can have an effect/has control. I don't think the immigration policies are kicking on immigrants at all - yes they are getting more selective, but that is no bad thing in itself.

I'm glad that you pointed out the issue of inter-company transfers because that will bring in even more immigrant workers from India and other places since the immigration policies did not affect them.

The policies have affected that categoy - there is no route to settlement for inter-company workers anymore. What didn't affect them was that the cap was not applied to that group to avoid limiting companies' ability to move its workers freely - a compromise to secure continued economic activity. If there is no route to settlement, that removes much of the attraction for many of the abuses to the system.

Like i said before. . they are hitting on the wrong group of immigrants.

I don't think so. In actual fact they aren't hitting on any groups of immigrants - they are simply being more selective. If you are unable to demonstrate that you are essential to the British economy, then there is little justification for settling permanently for economic reasons. Immigrants have no automatic right to settle in the UK (or anywhere else) and should understand that the priorities of the host country dictates the terms, regardless of what some may feel about the general performance of the government.

duduspace:

@Debosky

I still don't agree with it and those figures are very dodgy. An analysis hasn't been made of how many of those who applied are actually working and contributing to the society, if I'm not mistaken only about a 3rd of those who applied actually made it through.

Simply working and 'contributing' cannot be a measure to allow people to settle permanently. If the immigrants possess no special skills that cannot be reasonably replaced by UK or EEA nationals, then their presence is to fulfil a temporary shortage, meaning they should depart when they finish.

This is the particular part I find to be very unfair and it will definitely discourage a lot of the skilled people they need. How can someone come to a country and work, bring his family and then you tell him he has to go after 5 years? what kinda 5 years working holiday is that and who will come with such a rule in place? It would be much better never to allow people come at all in the first instance rather than such a slavish rule.

The rule is clear - if you are deemed to be in an occupation of value to Britain, you will be offered a route to settlement. If you are not in such an occupation, you are told AT THE BEGINNING that there is no route to settlement - the choice is yours to make. If you choose to go to Britain under the circumstances, then why blame anyone else? I see nothing slavish in that rule - you get paid for the work done, all you don't get is permanent residence.

I do some work in Algeria and even if I spend 10 years there, there is no permanent residence offer - that's the rule and people comply with it.

Debo, this is silly there is no other name for it. I am on Tier 1 and I know the stress that goes with it and you need certain breaks which some people never get but if you knew the score from the beginning you get to grips with it but that is because you see a light at the end of the tunnel if you strive hard and yu can always cut your losses at certain stages in the process. With this kind of immigration policy, no skilled people will come I can assure you and that is no scare mongering but the desperate who don't have much to lose will keep trying their luck anyway so I definitely see these rules being changed after much damage has been done to the system.

I disagree - like the Airbus example given by Omo Tier 1, the companies will bear the stress for the skilled labour they need to bring in and those people WILL continue to come.

@ Duduspace

The UAE has no route to settlement, How come many people including Nigerians choose to go and live there? Skilled people will go where their skills are required even if there is no route to settlement. settlement is just a bonus that was thrown in. It is all about using you skills to earn a decent wage and not a way to settle in another man country.

Okay thread however various people have read so many different meanings to this without understanding the UK immigration system in totality that I honesty find some appalling………, won't mention names!!

Some on this thread have also gone off topic talking about areas not relevant to the primary topic discussed.

The thread and paper topic states

"Uk About To Axe Permanent Residence Permit For Legal Immigrants" while the reference states

"Curb on immigrimmigrant'ss to settle here as rule that allows them to stay after working for five years set for axe"

Unfortunately it is clear both the writer of this article (i.e. James Black from daily mail) and the poster of this topic are extremely limited on their knowledge of UK immigration procedures. In my words "James Black" is a complete nonentity for using such a misleading header on a newspaper as the header in itself is contradictory. For those that don't know "Dailymail" is a UK gossip and trend newspaper.  
Resident Permits can never be axed as that is synonymous to saying "No migrant can attain British citizenship anymore"……….with logic this statement is absolute idiocy!!!.

The statement is referring originally to a proposal on extending the time of attaining permanent resident for legal immigrants from 5 years to 7 years and was part of a Paper Consultation launched by the Home Office Secretary back in Jun 2011 specifically focused on reducing the number of people who could apply for British Citizenship through loopholes. An exception was to apply in cases where applicants met required points against a set of criterion based on previous income earnings, Qualifications, Age and professional work experience.

This Consultation was closed on the 9th of September and nothing has since been said if it will be passed on to the House of Commons. See link below:-

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/consultations/employment-related-settlement/

[url=http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/news/settlement_consultation_closes_on_9_september/_|September year rule to British naturalisation currently applies to EU migrants equally as much as it does to professional migrants who want to become British Citizens.]http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/news/settlement_consultation_closes_on_9_september/_|September year rule to British naturalisation currently applies to EU migrants equally as much as it does to professional migrants who want to become British Citizens. [/url]

A trend has been noticed on EU Migrants working on the most minimal jobs, naturalising after 5 years and jumping on the UK benefits ladder without any meaningful contribution to the UK economy in the first place.  One thing we can all agree here is that loop hole needs to be reviewed fast as we can all justify the immediate rise of Eastern European migrants to the UK looking to exploit this opportunity.

The Labour party who introduced this back in the day have openly come to confirm they got it wrong and never estimated the rise of migrants from Eastern Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8788109/Labour-got-it-wrong-on-immigration-says-Ed-Miliband.html

Unfortunately those on the Tier Schemes i.e. Professional & Student migrants have no choice other than meeting the points via what they pay to the UK government in terms of earnings, school fees, contributions, continued sponsored employment etc to get Visa extensions. This is in no way a tightly run ship especially due to Tier 1 migrants with statuses of being self employed however what they pay to the UK HMRC in terms taxes is what is used to validate their earning power. A Security Outlet entrepreneur with a bachelors degree who runs his own business and is able to earn more than a qualified medical surgeon is a professional equally as much as Medical Doctor with no job and 2 years work experience cannot be classed as a professional, Please do not let us argue about this as I know the naija superiority stereotype to this statement!!.  

If such an action as axing permanent residence permit for legal immigrants was to ever occur, the home office will be flooded with Civil cases (by Business & Individuals) that it will cripple the UK economy at large.  

NOTE TO ALL: Now you see UK Gossip Newspapers can be misleading too to make a quick buck so naija newspapers are not alone on this!!!

duduspace:

The truth is that the influx of people taking these so called 'jobs' are mostly from the EU, every figure I know backs that up. I know a friend who started out in Tech Support 2 when he arrived and is now a Core Network Engineer in the 2nd largest company by Broadband penetration while most of the EU migrants I shared house with on arriving are the ones taking all the student jobs of old like waiting, stacking shelves, hotel porter, security and such that used to be available. Not boasting but if you count 100 EU migrants to the UK, yu'll struggle to get one who can hold the position I currently hold.   If someone is working and contributing to society then you shouldn't be limiting how long they can stay when some people can stroll in and start collecting benefits almost immediately without lifting a finger.

Again it would be foolish to compare a non EEA immigrant to an EEA immigrant in this case - UK citizens can equally go abroad to EEA countries and claim benefits/take jobs - there is a reciprocal agreement involved. No matter the number of immigrants the UK takes from Nigeria for example, UK citizens CANNOT under any circumstances obtain a similar level of benefits in Nigeria. Simply contributing to society is not a sufficient measure to stay permanently, especially if it is clearly stated that the individual is in to fill a temporary shortage. It is this assumption of a right to settle that the law seeks to eliminate - it is not a right anywhere in the world, except in places where they are actively seeking to increase their populations.

I agree it is their country but it is scare mongering that would make a country implement such a silly immigration policy, if those proposals see the light of day, the UK will suffer for it and badly too.
I am more worried because I'm also a stakeholder in the country, my NI and tax might increase or I might have hospital staff shortage on the NHS when these chickens come home to roost particularly with the expected 2.5b bill expected to be picked up with the EU court ruling on the benefit system. I am not afraid cos my permanent residency might be affected NO it cannot, I'm already thinking beyond that.

You have yet to put forward any argument to back up this claim of 'suffer badly' - people in shortage occupations will continue to be allowed in. Exceptional individuals will continue to be provided with a route to settlement. Even exceptional Tier 2 candidates will be given the opportunity to settle. The fact of the matter is that it is those in jobs not deemed essential, or those that can be easily replaced by UK/EEA nationals that will leave. The skilled labour WILL continue to come in.

My money is being used to bail out Greece, Ireland and greedy bankers and they now want to prevent more people like me to come and carry the burden? while some silly euro policies allow some idiots to just stroll in and start collecting money twiddling their thumbs adding to the problems and you expect me to be happy?  

People like you (people with in-demand skills) will not be prevented from coming in. It may be a more stringent process, but that is not a bad thing.

You can't do anything to stop EEA migration as it is enshrined as a right of free movement in the EU. It is illogical to demand that other immigrants be allowed to come in as they wish simply because the EEA migrants are free to do so to collect benefits. If there is a problem with immigration (over a third of UK citizens feel there is) then the problem can only be addressed in one way available to the government - limit/reduce the number of non-EEA immigrants.

If you're are not in Tier 1 category I'll advise you to go back home. Tier 2 is full of sh**t and sham marriage is no more working.

Tier 2 as it stands is still a good method provided you provide all the necessary paper work. I cannot comment on sham marriages as the people into it keep inventing ways of beating the system.

@debo

the rule might be clear but that doesnt make it less silly as spelt out in that consultation. The fact remains that it makes no sense to ask someone to come take a job and tell him to go back home after five years. Why dnt everyone just stay in their country then? yu do not address the core question . Why shld someone disrupt his own family life to come address a skill shortage in the UK and then have to go back after 5 years without a change in his circumstances? I.e he can feed himself and pays his taxes and prolly still holds the job he originally came in for. is it not morally reprehensible to only think of the country and not of that family and person? if an immigrant can be accused of looking out for himself alone, should a nation also descend that low?

@norrisman
This is not the UAE, this is the UK where people talk things out. Some portions of that proposal will not stand up to scrutiny. We dont just do things here. We do things that make sense and are fair. At least I'd like to think the UK hasnt lost that. There are other places people can migrate to but that doesnt make those proposals fair or in the UK's best interest IMO.

duduspace:

@debo

the rule might be clear but that doesnt make it less silly as spelt out in that consultation. The fact remains that it makes no sense to ask someone to come take a job and tell him to go back home after five years.

It makes perfect sense - that is what applies when diplomats go to work abroad, that is what applies when people go on short job postings abroad, it is what applies when people go to work in foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Algeria, Russia, France, Spain amongst others.

Why dnt everyone just stay in their country then?

The UK government has not forced anyone to move to the UK - if the terms of work are deemed unsatisfactory, the choice is up to the intending immigrant to stay in their country. They are simply saying if you want to come to their country, you do so on their terms - i.e. leave after 5 years.

yu do not address the core question . Why shld someone disrupt his own family life to come address a skill shortage in the UK and then have to go back after 5 years without a change in his circumstances?

That is not a core question at all - most countries in the world provide a means for workers to come in to work but do not provide for automatic settlement. The UK is not doing anything extraordinary in trying to more clearly define those that will be permitted to settle.

It is that person's prerogative to disrupt his/her own family life. Folk disrupt their family life to go on Naval missions or to work on rigs for months at a time, or work in foreign countries and then go back home. Do they claim a right to relocate their families PERMANENTLY to those places?

A shortage is exactly that - a temporary need for staff which will disappear after a period of time. I don't understand why you think that a person deserves to stay permanently simply because they've worked somewhere for a period of time. There shouldn't be an automatic connection between the two.

is it not morally reprehensible to only think of the country and not that family and person?

There is nothing morally reprehensible in setting immigration law for the benefit of your own citizens. The family in question DOES NOT have to move to the UK in the first place, neither does the person. Workers do not have a moral right to settle permanently in the UK so this has nothing to do with morality in the least.

For me I see a point in Debosky's argument, if the new rule is to apply to future immigrants who are made aware of what they are getting into then the choice is theirs. If you choose to go to a country where you know fully well you won't be allowed to settle then you cannot come back to whinge about how insensitive the country immigration laws has been to your plight, the fact remains that no one will be forced to move to UK to work, whoever chooses to come here will have to live by the rules simples!

Debosky you have made valid points. But I have to say any changes to the immigration rules needs to be for new immigrants and not existing immigrants.

They should not change the goal post in the middle of the game. Every country has the right to modify immigration policies to suit their interest. I agree with this, but people who signed up for immigration policy A should not have immigration policy B thrust upon them.

If from today Mr X knows that coming to the UK on a work permit will not end in permanent residency in the UK, he can make a clear choice in moving himself and  his family to the UK based on the information in front of him.

If i get hired to come into someones home to mow their lawn and we agreed on giving me a glass of orange juice after cutting it and $50 and then I only get $50, I am well within my right to complain as this was not what we agreed on even though it is their home and their lawn.

Countries can do whatever they want. . . .retrospective immigration changes to laws is what i don't like.

Saying that, it isn't clear from the info i have been reading if this changes are retrospective.

^^ In terms of retrospective application I don't think that is the case. This is a quote from the consultation document:

As the Home Secretary announced in February, we intend the settlement reforms will affect those workers who entered economic migration routes under the Immigration Rules in force from 6 April this year and who, under the current system, could have expected to apply for settlement in 2016.

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/wms-immigration

Tightening the noose indeed.

Time to go home and fix your countries. EU no be anybodys maternal home. See as everybody just dey here dey calculate how many years it will take to get a resident permit. Asians used to be in the same boat but have largely fixed their countries. Take your skills home and stop living on another mans benevolence. Time to go home.

@debosky,
I am sorry but most of your arguement thrust is not in tandem with reality!

Did it occur to you that unlike in the past tory conferences, before, during and after the last conference (last week) tory activist did not go round the radio and tvs shouting immigration and Europe? Rather thier swan song was ".Cameron: it's the economy, stupid"

The tory lied to the UK citizens that thier job is no more 'cos of immigrants, unknown to many, they were been lied to and lo and behold, almost two years after the tory took over with obnoxious immigration control, they still do not have jobs.

When the Migration Advisory Committee interviewed Rolls Royce and Airbus, thier feedback was simple: "they 'r jobs but the UK work force skills do not match the jobs available", Rolls Royce went further to say they have two job roles they have been advertizing for 11 straight months but unlike before when they applications from places outside the EU, they got none and the four applications they received from UK citizens earned two an interview slot but during the interview process they didnot get pass the first stage"

Both Airbus UK and Rolls Royce have decided to increase the capacity of thier 'center of excellence' based in the US, Russia, Brazil,Spain,China as they claimed the UK authorities immigration policy is affecting thier ability to bring people to the UK. Surely, it is the UK economy that is loosing out both in taxes and skills enhancement!

The issue of right to settlement by skilled workers has been looked into by the MAC and thier conclusion was the government should leave the route as it is as there is not sufficient evidence from thier analysis that closing the route will curb the immigration numbers.

In a nut shell, I do not see how this policy will help drive down immigration numbers. The bottomline is the government is confused, lack the know-how on the way forward with the economy and virtually ALL her policies todate from police service reforms, to civil service pension reforms, to health care (NHS) reforms, Schools building project reforms, Banking sector reforms have brought chaos, uncertainty, lack of purpose to these sctors of the economy!

owobokiri:

Time to go home and fix your countries. EU no be anybodys maternal home. See as everybody just dey here dey calculate how many years it will take to get a resident permit. Asians used to be in the same boat but have largely fixed their countries. Take your skills home and stop living on another mans benevolence. Time to go home.

Which Asian country?

debosky:

It makes perfect sense - that is what applies when diplomats go to work abroad, that is what applies when people go on short job postings abroad, it is what applies when people go to work in foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Algeria, Russia, France, Spain amongst others.

Not applicable, diplomats come to represent their country and are taken care of by their country.

debosky:

The UK government has not forced anyone to move to the UK - if the terms of work are deemed unsatisfactory, the choice is up to the intending immigrant to stay in their country. They are simply saying if you want to come to their country, you do so on their terms - i.e. leave after 5 years.

Correct, calling it slavery is stretching it a bit but its still preying on desperate people and will not attract the skilled labour they need. My cousin just moved to Canada after getting his UK citizenship on completing his Tier 1 and naturalization but that was because he felt he had hit a glass ceiling here in terms of jobs available to Consultant level doctors. If someone tells him he will probably have to go back to Nigeria after 5 of being in the medical profession in the UK just because there is no longer shortage of doctors in the UK at that point in time (despite him holding down a job), he won't come in the first instance.

debosky:

That is not a core question at all - most countries in the world provide a means for workers to come in to work but do not provide for automatic settlement. The UK is not doing anything extraordinary in trying to more clearly define those that will be permitted to settle.

Irrelevant and a lame defense, there are countries that practice Sharia and cut off people's hands for stealing, does that make it right and should the UK adopt that on the basis that some other countries do so?  
I have no problems with clearer definitions, rules can be tightened or loosened just as punishment for crime can be but some underlying principles are wrong. I have pointed out the part I don't like in the proposals.

debosky:

It is that person's prerogative to disrupt his/her own family life. Folk disrupt their family life to go on Naval missions or to work on rigs for months at a time, or work in foreign countries and then go back home.  Do they claim a right to relocate their families PERMANENTLY to those places?

It has always been an individual prerogative, that fact is not in dispute. All those you mention are special cases who are remunerated adequately relative to the added responsibility they are taking over others. If you tell me these people who will work for 5 years in the UK system will be paid more or taxed less I would agree with you but it is wrong to allow people come over to develop your country and then tell them to go and start afresh in new systems and cultures after 5 years. Just because you say there is no longer any skills shortage in the jobs they came to do even when they are still active in those jobs. It is unfair and can only attract the type of people you really do not want.

debosky:

A shortage is exactly that - a temporary need for staff which will disappear after a period of time. I don't understand why you think that a person deserves to stay permanently simply because they've worked somewhere for a period of time. There shouldn't be an automatic connection between the two.

There is nothing morally reprehensible in setting immigration law for the benefit of your own citizens. The family in question DOES NOT have to move to the UK in the first place, neither does the person. Workers do not have a moral right to settle permanently in the  UK so this has nothing to do with morality in the least.

I can't believe you are saying this, why did the UK have those laws in the first instance if their forebears before them did not recognise that foreigners could come in, contribute their quota to the country, integrate themselves and then naturalise?  even the thrust of these proposal still pays lip service to those principles because they can't come out and openly say that is what these laws are actually designed to achieve. How did the forebears of some of these people settle in the UK in the first instance?
There is nothing morally reprehensible in setting immigration law for the benefit of your own citizens but the nature of those laws should pass every test of fairness and those laws should not become counter productive. for example, in an highly unlikely and extreme scenario, would making a law to allow those immigrants to stay and work for half pay while their peers earn full pay or getting taxed more also be a right way to benefit their own citizens?

Seriously,I am still trying to figure out how this will reduce the immigration numbers to the UK.

Rather all it does is make UK unattractive to Skilled Work force meaning it will cost the UK in loss taxes as job will be shipped out! This is already happening in the engineering sectors and soon the financial services will follow.

So far the immigration policies they have implemented have yielded little or no result.

What I know is certain is highly skilled group who are extremely mobile will seek the nearest heaven where thier interest will be protected and the big companies no doubt will also follow.

But the sad reality is the UK will be severely damaged that it will take a decade to fix it up.

duduspace:

Correct, calling it slavery is stretching it a bit but its still preying on desperate people and will not attract the skilled labour they need. My cousin just moved to Canada after getting his UK citizenship on completing his Tier 1 but that was because he felt he had hit a glass ceiling here in terms of jobs available to Consultant level doctors. If someone tells him he will probably have to go back to Nigeria after 5 of being in the medical profession in the UK just because there is no longer shortage of doctors in the UK at that point in time (despite him holding down a job), he won't come in the first instance.

What does your cousin's alleged glass ceiling have to do with immigration policy?

If your cousin was told AT THE START that he can only work for 5 years and then leave, it is up to him to make his decision.

What you are claiming is that if someone is given a 5 year contract to work abroad and then return to his (poverty-stricken) country that he won't take it? You're a joker - majority of Nigerians would take that in a second, unless they have other alternatives. People with ordinary visit visas are trying to stay in the UK, talk less of people given 5 years to work.

Irrelevant and a lame defense, there are countries that practice Sharia and cut off people's hands for stealing, does that make it right and should the UK adopt that on the basis that some other countries do so?  

So resetting immigration rules is now equivalent with Sharia? You are making no sense at all. You have not pointed out anything 'unfair' about the law.

I have no problems with clearer definitions, rules can be tightened or loosened just as punishment for crime can be but some underlying principles are wrong. I have pointed out the part I don't like in the proposals.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong in the underlying principles - economic immigration's PURPOSE is to fill skill gaps in the country that cannot be filled locally, not to allow anyone who can get a job a right to stay permanently. That purpose is only being further clarified.

All those you mention are special cases who are remunerated adequately relative to the added responsibility they are taking over others.

There are not special cases in any sense - they are offered payment to do a job with terms and conditions that they accept. In this case, the terms and conditions is you stay 5 years and you leave - you either accept them or not.

If you tell me these people who will work for 5 years in the UK system will be paid more or taxed less I would agree with you but it is wrong to allow people come over to develop your country and then tell them to go and start afresh in new systems and cultures after 5 years. Just because you say there is no longer any skills shortage in the jobs they came to do even when they are still active in those jobs. It is unfair and can only attract the type of people you really do not want.

Enough of this 'developing your country' rubbish - if there weren't jobs created/developed by the UK, would you go there? Why not develop your own country in the first place? Did the UK force you to go there? There is absolutely nothing unfair in it - if someone offers you a 2 year contract and at the end of it says goodbye, will you deem that as being unfair or is it by force for them to offer you permanent employment?

I can't believe you are saying this, why did the UK have those laws in the first instance if their forebears before them did not recognise that foreigners could come in, contribute their quota to the country, integrate themselves and then naturalise?  even the thrust of these proposal still pays lip service to those principles because they can't come out and openly say that is what these laws are actually designed to achieve. How did the forebears of some of these people settle in the UK in the first instance?

Again you are missing the point - no one has STOPPED people coming in to 'contribute their quota' - they are simply being more SELECTIVE.

There is nothing morally reprehensible in setting immigration law for the benefit of your own citizens but the nature of those laws should pass every test of fairness. for example, in an highly unlikely and extreme scenario, would making a law to allow those immigrants to stay and work for half pay while their peers earn full pay also be a right way to benefit their own citizens?

That can't happen because there are employment laws preventing such discrimination. I don't know why you are bringing in an irrelevant scenario to claim for fairness - you have still shown absolutely nothing unfair about the proposals.

Omo_Tier1:

@debosky,
I am sorry but most of your arguement thrust is not in tandem with reality!

Did it occur to you that unlike in the past tory conferences, before, during and after the last conference (last week) tory activist did not go round the radio and tvs shouting immigration and Europe? Rather thier swan song was ".Cameron: it's the economy, silly"

So because the economy is the main problem, immigration should be allowed to run riot?

It's like saying because you have a pressing headache, it doesn't matter if your teeth are decaying - only the headache needs treatment.

The tory lied to the UK citizens that thier job is no more 'cos of immigrants, unknown to many, they were been lied to and lo and behold, almost two years after the tory took over with obnoxious immigration control, they still do not have jobs.

Did the consultation say it was reducing immigration simply because of jobs? Y'all should continue dreaming up fancy theories.

When the Migration Advisory Committee interviewed Rolls Royce and Airbus, thier feedback was simple: "they 'r jobs but the UK work force skills do not match the jobs available", Rolls Royce went further to say they have two job roles they have been advertizing for 11 straight months but unlike before when they applications from places outside the EU, they got none and the four applications they received from UK citizens earned two an interview slot but during the interview process they didnot get pass the first stage"

Both Airbus UK and Rolls Royce have decided to increase the capacity of thier 'center of excellence' based in the US, Russia, Brazil,Spain,China as they claimed the UK authorities immigration policy is affecting thier ability to bring people to the UK. Surely, it is the UK economy that is loosing out both in taxes and skills enhancement!

No one is denying there are skill shortages - but are all the immigrants seeking to stay in the UK aerospace engineers or stress engineers? Of course not! Those are scarce skills worldwide so that is not a UK-specific problem alone.

If the engineers meet the requirements they will be let in - what likely happened were delays associated with implementing a new system, not preventing engineers from coming in. The article you mentioned was from February this year - have you bothered to find out whether those engineers have now been let in?

The shortage occupations are still available for the likes of Airbus to recruit if needed - they need to recruit externally, and are allowed to do so.

I guess it's the 'skilled' immigrants from Nigeria with BSc and MSc from schools with no labs applying for Tier 2 that will have the skills Airbus and Rolls Royce are looking for.

The issue of right to settlement by skilled workers has been looked into by the MAC and thier conclusion was the government should leave the route as it is as there is not sufficient evidence from thier analysis that closing the route will curb the immigration numbers.

There are and will continue to be routes to settlement for selected skilled workers, not just for ALL skilled workers - this is something you seem unable to understand. Shortage occupations continue to have routes to settlement, but not occupations that are only experiencing temporary shortages.

In a nut shell, I do not see how this policy will help drive down immigration numbers. The bottomline is the government is confused, lack the know-how on the way forward with the economy and virtually ALL her policies todate from police service reforms, to civil service pension reforms, to health care (NHS) reforms, Schools building project reforms, Banking sector reforms have brought chaos, uncertainty, lack of purpose to these sctors of the economy!

Let me give you one example - many of the students (Nigerians for example) coming to the UK do so with the view of becoming permanent residents. If more of them realise that there is no route to settlement, they will leave after their studies, instead of settling and having kids above the UK birthrate (taking up school places), bringing in their grandparents to increase the burden on the NHS and taking up housing and driving up rents.

Omo_Tier1:

Seriously,I am still trying to figure out how this will reduce the immigration numbers to the UK.

Of course you can't understand - you can't understand that immigrants have a much higher birthrate than the UK population as a whole. You don't understand that many immigrants bring aged parents to the UK to take advantage of the NHS and the associated costs. You don't understand how higher birthrate increases pressure on schools and homes.

Rather all it does is make UK unattractive to Skilled Work force meaning it will cost the UK in loss taxes as job will be shipped out! This is already happening in the engineering sectors and soon the financial services will follow.

Please mention the engineering sectors 'shipping jobs out' as a result of immigration. The shortage occupation list continues to attract skilled engineers year after year with major engineering companies expanding UK operations (in oil and gas for example).

So far the immigration policies they have implemented have yielded little or no result.

Correct - and that is because they typically take 4-5 years to take effect.

What I know is certain is highly skilled group who are extremely mobile will seek the nearest heaven where thier interest will be protected and the big companies no doubt will also follow.

That is true, and that has MORE to do with taxation rates than with immigration policy - you fail to distinguish the difference.