Debosky i think you should at this point rest your arguement, anything that anyone would add in contrary to your points would be deemed vague really. You have been explicit and i think people would not always accep the fact, this would only carry on. Good job

I agree - I'll only end up repeating things I've already said.

Unless something new comes in that I haven't addressed, there's no need for repetition.

Somebody enlighten me on this one could all these be recession related? Is the UK trying to save the funds they "have" or could they be controlling the mass immigration and think giving a time scale will discourage skilled workers from accepting the job offers due to the criteria or overstaying once their contracts are over?

^^ Simply put, they want to benefit from the skills of workers for a fixed period of time without giving them the right to settle permanently. By removing the automatic right to permanent settlement, they hope to limit the number of skilled workers (and dependants) remaining in the UK beyond a fixed period.

It is partly driven by the recession - whenever there are job losses, the natural tendency is to tighten up the rules to prevent abuses and to benefit the local population first. More importantly though, it is aimed at ensuring that immigration levels are lower in the long term and closer matched to the UK's needs and not just an automatic process.

debosky:

^^ Simply put, they want to benefit from the skills of workers for a fixed period of time without giving them the right to settle permanently. By removing the automatic right to permanent settlement, they hope to limit the number of skilled workers (and dependants) remaining in the UK beyond a fixed period.

It is partly driven by the recession - whenever there are job losses, the natural tendency is to tighten up the rules to prevent abuses and to benefit the local population first. More importantly though, it is aimed at ensuring that immigration levels are lower in the long term and closer matched to the UK's needs and not just an automatic process.

This theory is debatable. It would most likely end up limiting skilled workers coming into the UK. Every immigrants looks out for self interest. If countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc still offers skilled migrants automatic link between work permit and permanent residence, the UK will only end up on the losing side, in the long term.

This, of course, is only my opinion

dancewith:

This theory is debatable. It would most likely end up limiting skilled workers coming into the UK. Every immigrants looks out for self interest. If countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc still offers skilled migrants automatic link between work permit and permanent residence, the UK will only end up on the losing side, in the long term.

This, of course, is only my opinion

The automatic link is being managed to make it more selective - occupations deemed critical or with shortages will still have the linkage.

Besides, even with immigrants looking out for self interest, there are a multitude of other factors that still make the UK an attractive destination - large immigrant populations is one. With all the restrictions and limitations being introduced, the number of applications have not reduced as yet which may indicate that immigrants are still willing to put up with the changing rules.

I also do not see any of those territories you mentioned relaxing their immigration policies - there appears to be some form of tightening across the board.

I consider it unlikely that the UK will suffer from this policy - there are many exceptions that the best skilled workers will likely fall into e.g. people earning over £150,000 (high flying bankers and the like) will not be subject to the new restrictions.

debosky:

The automatic link is being managed to make it more selective - occupations deemed critical or with shortages will still have the linkage.

Besides, even with immigrants looking out for self interest, there are a multitude of other factors that still make the UK an attractive destination - large immigrant populations is one. With all the restrictions and limitations being introduced, the number of applications have not reduced as yet which may indicate that immigrants are still willing to put up with the changing rules.

I also do not see any of those territories you mentioned relaxing their immigration policies - there appears to be some form of tightening across the board.

I consider it unlikely that the UK will suffer from this policy - there are many exceptions that the best skilled workers will likely fall into e.g. people earning over £150,000 (high flying bankers and the like) will not be subject to the new restrictions.

I like your optimism, much like that of a tory activist drinking the liberal pint!

Get real!, This and other immigration policies of the tory is not just sending skilled workers away but also jobs! Major companies are increasingly setting or expanding thier workload overseas thanks to government making it more expensive for companies to recruit or bring skilled workers over and the overall impact would be most felt by the bespoke companies whose jobs the big companies will also be sending overseas.
Another serious issue the government hasnt taken serious is the fact that the fewer the pool of skilled workers available, the stiffer the competition and you know what follows -ASTRONOMICAL WAGE INCREASE! Go check those jobs that are on the shortage skilled list and see how inflated the entry salary for a graduate is. That should give you a sense of what the tory drive 'em all immigration policy might end up giving to the country in the shorttime!

It is onething to have a designed route to bring in the brightest and the best but it is another for those bright minds to see the country as a place for long term career prospect.

The US has one of the highly controlled process for skilled workers but they reward the skilled worker with options that make them think thier long term career prospect would be served in the US.

Again, it is UK and it belongs to the Brits so they can do whatever they so wish. If the country falls apart, the skilled workers will take stroll to other more welcoming countries!

Onething this whole debate has not touched on is this obvious question of integration into the wider society of a skilled work force who no doubt will have innate feelings that they are only be wanted for thier skills to cover up the shortfall with the end result being a complete disconnect from the UK society.

A vast majority of these skilled migrant -more than ever before- will live up the name given to them, trying to take as much as they can from the society and giving very little in return 'cos of the feeling that they have little or no stake in the country anyway.

@debosky,
you keep mentioning that there are other routes to settlements can I ask you to list them out? I am sure you would soon figure out that those routes will involve having something british attach before one can qualify.

Lastly, since these migrants will most likely be expected to live after 5years, will that mean they would pay less income tax, wouldn't be mandated to enroll unto state pension both basic and second tier and thier NI would be based on an Upper Limit lower than that of a british citizen? I guess not in a million years will this happen!

Omo_Tier1:

I like your optimism, much like that of a tory activist drinking the liberal pint!

I am neither tory nor liberal - I am simply a pragmatist.

Get real!, This and other immigration policies of the tory is not just sending skilled workers away but also jobs! Major companies are increasingly setting or expanding thier workload overseas thanks to government making it more expensive for companies to recruit or bring skilled workers over and the overall impact would be most felt by the bespoke companies whose jobs the big companies will also be sending overseas.

This is simply not true - jobs are being 'sent abroad' for a number of reasons, the major ones being economic competitiveness in terms of price. There are numerous other low-cost locations elsewhere to do business and immigration costs are a negligible contributor to this. Taxation, high wage demands and economies of scale are the primary drivers for companies sending work overseas, not immigration policy.

Another serious issue the government hasnt taken serious is the fact that the fewer the pool of skilled workers available, the stiffer the competition and you know what follows -ASTRONOMICAL WAGE INCREASE! Go check those jobs that are on the shortage skilled list and see how inflated the entry salary for a graduate is. That should give you a sense of what the tory drive 'em all immigration policy might end up giving to the country in the shorttime!

Those jobs have been on the shortage occupation list for over 5 years now - if immigration has not solved the problem, it is highly unreasonable to think immigration will suddenly solve it now. Besides, as I have mentioned, jobs on the shortage occupation lists will continue to be let in - the change in policy does NOT affect those skilled workers.

It is onething to have a designed route to bring in the brightest and the best but it is another for those bright minds to see the country as a place for long term career prospect.

I agree with this - a number of other factors beyond immigration law will contribute to this perception.

The US has one of the highly controlled process for skilled workers but they reward the skilled worker with options that make them think thier long term career prospect would be served in the US.

If this is so, then why should the UK not also make its processes as highly controlled?

Again, it is UK and it belongs to the Brits so they can do whatever they so wish. If the country falls apart, the skilled workers will take stroll to other more welcoming countries!

I see. If it is so easy to take a stroll so why are the so called skilled workers complaining? They should save their energy for strolling instead and leave the UK to deal with their problems.

Omo_Tier1:

Onething this whole debate has not touched on is this obvious question of integration into the wider society of a skilled work force who no doubt will have innate feelings that they are only be wanted for thier skills to cover up the shortfall with the end result being a complete disconnect from the UK society.

If the skilled workers are only going to be around for a limited period of time, then integration is less of a concern, as there will be fewer foreigners staying permanently in the country.

A vast majority of these skilled migrant -more than ever before- will live up the name given to them, trying to take as much as they can from the society and giving very little in return 'cos of the feeling that they have little or no stake in the country anyway.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - better they use their energies to develop/contribute to their home countries so they won't need to go to the UK in the first place.

@debosky,
you keep mentioning that there are other routes to settlements can I ask you to list them out? I am sure you would soon figure out that those routes will involve having something british attach before one can qualify.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'british attach' - can you explain?

The Tier 1 route still remains a route to settlement, the proposals include creating an exceptional route for some Tier 2 workers to switch into and the 150k and above earners are exempt from the restrictions on settlement. Shortage occupations also have a route to settlement.

Lastly, since these migrants will most likely be expected to live after 5years, will that mean they would pay less income tax, wouldn't be mandated to enroll unto state pension both basic and second tier and thier NI would be based on an Upper Limit lower than that of a british citizen? I guess not in a million years will this happen!

Why should they pay less tax? If the skilled workers (or their dependants) are ill or need to go to school while in the UK are they required to have paid tax for years before receiving treatment or services? Will the fire service ask them for tax paid before fighting a fire in their home? I don't think so. If they are able to use the NHS, schools and so on within those 5 years, then they should pay tax like everyone else.

Besides, whether or not an individual resides in the UK, if he/she has paid into a pension the person can receive the payments when due regardless of location.

@dancewith

if ok kindly add me on your messenger i have couple of things to discuss with u.

vektrax at hotmail dot co dot uk

many thanks

Chew on this Debo and stop supporting absurd Tory initiatives that are going nowhere. Even the populace can see the stupidity in all this.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7317438/voters-support-lower-immigration-but-not-the-governments-policies.thtml

[Quote]

[size=14pt]Voters support lower immigration, but not the government's policies[/size]

Matt Cavanagh 6:20pm

A major new survey of public opinion on immigration, published today by the recently-established Migration Observatory, should prove troubling reading for realists inside the Conservative party.

As yet, the opposition are not threatening them on the issue – Labour still find it easiest to get noticed when they are apologising for their own record – and the general thrust of the Conservative approach, that immigration has been too high and must be reduced, is clearly very popular.

But they have two problems. First, hardly anyone believes the government will actually deliver on their promises. A recent YouGov poll found 78 per cent believe it unlikely they would succeed in reducing annual net migration "from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands".

Second, while the general idea of reducing immigration is popular, there is far less public support for the way the government is going about it. This is the main value of today's survey. It finds only a minority (32 per cent) support reducing the numbers of either foreign students or high-skill migrants – the policies the government is actually pursuing.

The strongest support (64 per cent) is for reducing the numbers of low-skill migrants; but for many years now, the great majority of low-skill migrants have come from the EU, which the government can do nothing about. Indeed, the most recent figures show net migration from Eastern Europe increasing. (There is also strong support for reducing illegal migration, asylum seekers, and extended family members coming from abroad; though in the latter two cases, this is likely to be based on an exaggerated view of the numbers.)

This picture confirms what some of us have been saying for a while: not only is it dangerous for politicians to promise what they can't deliver, especially on an issue as emotive as immigration, it is perverse to end up targeting those categories of immigration which are the least unpopular, simply because they are the easiest to cut. It is especially perverse in the current economic climate, given that these categories are the most economically valuable.

The minister who has the job of trying to manage these contradictions is Damian Green. He is neither silly nor an ideologue, and it is said that privately he chafes against the net migration target. He has been experimenting with a different narrative: that net migration was "increasing relentlessly" until the election, and that the government should be given credit for stabilising it, even if they haven’t been able to reduce it. Unfortunately for him, the UK Statistics Authority has stated for the record that they "do not see evidence of an upward trend since 2004", and that they "would not regard the end of 2010 as the point at which the figures levelled off".

A better approach would be to follow the advice of the Migration Observatory, and abandon the crude target on net migration in favour of a wider range of indicators. In turn, this would allow the government to begin a longer term process of realigning their policy and language.

They should start by focusing on illegal migration. Today's survey finds that among the 69 per cent who say immigration should be reduced, a majority say the reduction should come "only" or "mostly" from illegal immigration; yet at the moment, the government's efforts in this area amount to little more than a new "shop-an-illegal" helpline, alongside cuts to border staff.

Next, the government should shift its approach to the categories of legal immigration which today's survey shows people are least bothered about: high-skill migrants and foreign students, where in each case a majority think the numbers should increase or stay the same.

On foreign students, Australia has just reversed their own restrictive approach, concerned at the damage to university revenue and the loss of export earnings. I have argued that the UK government should follow suit, concentrating on tackling visa scams and bogus colleges, but separating this from the numbers game of the net migration target – especially since only a small minority of foreign students stay permanently anyway. Today's survey confirms that despite foreign students making up the largest category of immigrants (37 per cent) on the government's chosen definition, they are seldom what people think of when they think about immigration. (People are still most likely to think about asylum seekers, despite the fact that for the last five years they have made up only 5 per cent of immigration – a damaging legacy of the asylum crisis of a decade ago, and the way the media covered it.)

On high-skill migrants, the government should abandon the idea of a further reduction in the quota, which David Cameron trailed in his speech last week, and move away from the crude and unfair emphasis on wealth, which in a lengthy analysis I identified as another big distorting influence across the range of current immigration policy. As I argued, it is hard to identify the next generation of entrepreneurs or Nobel laureates – and it certainly can't be done by looking at how much they are currently paid. The history of migration is one of talented, motivated people who start from fairly humble beginnings, and spend years working hard and making sacrifices for themselves and their family. It can take many years before this pays off, but when it does, it can do so spectacularly, for them and for the society which has offered them a home.

It is to Cameron's credit that he leavens his generally negative language on immigration by reminding people of the enormous contribution it has made to Britain in the past. But without a major change in policy, it will be significantly less likely to do so in the future.

Matt Cavanagh is an Associate Director at IPPR.
[/quote]

No one says there is no problem with immigration but for someone who migrated to the UK himself to support these policies is absurd, are you one of those people who believe in destroying bridges after you've crossed over?
I apologise in advance for making it a bit personal with you but that anyone could support these Tory policies riles me, it should be clear to anyone that it is definitely not in the best interests of the UK in the long term. The people who are able and ready to contribute to society will not be encouraged by these rules.

If I came to the UK on the Tier 1 and have successfully integrated myself into the society because of the opportunity afforded me, why exactly should any other young person with such talents and abilities as I have or even better who is willing to contribute to a society that accepts them be denied of such an opportunity just because some people want to score cheap political brownie points? 

duduspace:

Chew on this Debo and stop supporting absurd Tory initiatives that are going nowhere. Even the populace can see the stupidity in all this.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7317438/voters-support-lower-immigration-but-not-the-governments-policies.thtml

There is nothing absurd in limiting the number of people coming to a country when it is not in the country's interests to continue allowing such high numbers.

That the public do not wholly agree is a separate issue. The public in Greece do not agree with the cuts the government is trying to make, and that resistance is almost bringing the world economy to its knees so this is not simply about public opinion.

As I have repeated many times over,

The only lever available to the UK government is to reduce non EEA immigration. Their hands are tied when it comes to EEA immigration (unless they leave the EU, which is not going to happen. They are not doing this because they 'hate' non EEA immigrants, but that's the only number you can reduce.

If 3 factors are responsible for an effect and you can only control one, you have to focus your efforts on that one - that’s as simple as it is.

No one says there is no problem with immigration but for someone who migrated to the UK himself to support these policies is absurd, are you one of those people who believe in destroying bridges after you've crossed over?

My personal circumstances are not important here - it is a philosophical agreement that holds for any country on the planet. You cannot continue to have continuously increasing uncontrolled influxes of people into a physically and economically constrained country without dire consequences for the local inhabitants. There is an optimum level of immigration that benefits a country - if that level is exceeded, it is only reasonable to reduce the level back to a realistic level.

Limited skilled migration, in both directions, is a natural and beneficial feature of open economies. The issue is one of scale. The issue here is that too many people are moving to the UK, and this has to be stemmed, especially when the outward movement has reduced.

I apologise in advance for making it a bit personal with you but that anyone could support these Tory policies riles me, it should be clear to anyone that it is definitely not in the best interests of the UK in the long term. The people who are able and ready to contribute to society will not be encouraged by these rules.

The policy IS in the best interests of the UK in my view. People are not being prevented from contributing to society - the simple thing being done is being more selective about those who can come and contribute, weeding out those with lower potential. Why this simple fact evades you is quite puzzling. PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING PREVENTED FROM CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY.

If I came to the UK on the Tier 1 and have successfully integrated myself into the society because of the opportunity afforded me, why exactly should any other young person with such talents and abilities as I have or even better who is willing to contribute to a society that accepts them be denied of such an opportunity just because some people want to score cheap political brownie points? 

This shows your abject ignorance of the issues being discussed. You believe that the rules should remain static in light of changing external circumstances? That is not only unrealistic, that is patently foolish.

You cannot allow an endless influx of people (bringing dependants who are a drain on the economy, and who remit a large portion of their earnings abroad) and claim that this ‘contribution to society’ is the end all be all, especially when those countries don't offer you reciprocal rights as the EU does.

I repeat, people who want to contribute will still be let in. You need to stop saying contributing to society is being stopped by the policy when it only seeks to reduce numbers to manageable levels.

Debola emmmmmmmm you see, you know I have always loved you right from inception and I am now ready to announce it to the whole world that I have found a rib in debosky and our skin colour and DNA's all match plus including our very well seasoned taste in aggro bedimatics, will you please do me the honour by making me Mrs Debosky?  Debo please do not listen to hearsay, I am not married, my bosoms are still intact and high leveled(no gravity push), I am 5'10 tall, dark skinned, slim figured but well rounded hips don't lie, with 2pcs. I am cheap to maintain just get me a kalama lotion and dudu osun soap with grass and I am good to go to maintain my skin. I only wear OK shoes and clothes and only just found out(2 days ago) that there are some designers with names like Louis vintoonnn, channnel stations and gusssiii. I don't really care about them as I am already addicted to cheap shoes. I also offer cowgurl, mexicalchillipepper, wheelbarrow, missionary, 69 name it and all free of charge, Are you game?

[size=2pt]Is that your pic in your profile?dayummmmm[/size]

Of course I'm game. . . .though we need to do that elsewhere and not on this thread.

debosky:

There is nothing absurd in limiting the number of people coming to a country when it is not in the country's interests to continue allowing such high numbers.

That the public do not wholly agree is a separate issue. The public in Greece do not agree with the cuts the government is trying to make, and that resistance is almost bringing the world economy to its knees so this is not simply about public opinion.

As I have repeated many times over,

The only lever available to the UK government is to reduce non EEA immigration. Their hands are tied when it comes to EEA immigration (unless they leave the EU, which is not going to happen. They are not doing this because they 'hate' non EEA immigrants, but that's the only number you can reduce.

I do not agree that their hands are tied when it comes to EEA immigration and yes they can leave the EU if it becomes economically expedient to do so, it is not in the best interests of the country to cut the number of skilled people immigrating into the country or bring policies that will discourage such people from coming if you still leave your country open to benefit migrants who are not contributing but getting benefits. The highly skilled migrant/ Tier 1 program even by its very rules under the Labour govt disallowed resorting to public funds which are not contributory and yu wld never meet the requirements of residency if you resort to public funds whereas these EU migrants are not curtailed in resorting to public funds.
Which is more benefitial to the UK economy? those who can contribute and not take out or those who can take out and can easily choose not to contribute yet still be taken care of?

debosky:

If 3 factors are responsible for an effect and you can only control one, you have to focus your efforts on that one - that’s as simple as it is.

My personal circumstances are not important here - it is a philosophical agreement that holds for any country on the planet. You cannot continue to have continuously increasing uncontrolled influxes of people into a physically and economically constrained country without dire consequences for the local inhabitants. There is an optimum level of immigration that benefits a country - if that level is exceeded, it is only reasonable to reduce the level back to a realistic level.

This is an intellectually lazy way of looking at the issue, taking the path of least resistance has never benefited any society from history and that is not what government is elected to do. There are more pressing dangers looming in the background above and beyond the influx of skilled immigration (which has actually been shown to benefit a society) and this government is not focussing on those in the name of pursuing a unified Europe. The whole Eurozone concept itself is currently on very shaky foundations and needs to be thoroughly reexamined. The taxes being paid by these Working migrants whose numbers the proposals seeks to cut is also going towards bailout funds for the troubled countries in europe in case yu've forgotten.
There is already a Needs analysis test for any application put forward for a work permit which must clearly show that those jobs cannot be done by a UK or EU national but if someone moves to a different country to fill a post, it sounds crazy to say he is only there for 5 years and cannot stay on after 5 years if he remains relevant and useful within that system, its akin to madness.

debosky:

Limited skilled migration, in both directions, is a natural and beneficial feature of open economies. The issue is one of scale. The issue here is that too many people are moving to the UK, and this has to be stemmed, especially when the outward movement has reduced.

The policy IS in the best interests of the UK in my view. People are not being prevented from contributing to society - the simple thing being done is being more selective about those who can come and contribute, weeding out those with lower potential. Why this simple fact evades you is quite puzzling.

I have said and continue to repeat that I agree that there is a problem with immigration in the UK, if you however read that article well, it clearly points out that the problematic types are not Higly skilled, worker immigration or even student immigration, rather its

1. Low skilled worker migration from the less affluent and economically troubled countries of europe
2. Those who exploit the assylum system.
3. Illegal immigration which is actually the main problem.

Let the government proffer solutions to these ones first of all.

debosky:

PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING PREVENTED FROM CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY.


This shows your abject ignorance of the issues being discussed. You believe that the rules should remain static in light of changing external circumstances? That is not only unrealistic, that is patently foolish.

You cannot allow an endless influx of people (bringing dependants who are a drain on the economy, and who remit a large portion of their earnings abroad) and claim that this ‘contribution to society’ is the end all be all, especially when those countries don't offer you reciprocal rights as the EU does.

I repeat, people who want to contribute will still be let in. You need to stop saying contributing to society is being stopped by the policy when it only seeks to reduce numbers to manageable levels.

There are principles at play here which in your flimsy appraisal of the proposals you continue to overlook. This is not about reciprocity of rights by countries. The rules do not prevent people from contributing to society but it DISCOURAGES THE TYPE OF HIGHLY SKILLED MIGRATION THE SOCIETY NEEDS. Would you personally consider migration to the UK under these proposed rules?
I asked you the question if you consider it fair to have someone relocate from his own country to the UK with his family and work within that system for 5 years, contribute his taxes and remain a model citizen and then be told Sayonara after 5 years? Would you come to the UK under such a rule? I personally wouldn't go to a society that doesn't give a hoot about my own future but only seeks to use me for its own benefits and if such able people are being discouraged from coming when any riff raff from a EU country can walk in and begin collecting benefits almost immediately, how can you say that is beneficial to the UK in the long term?

My response will be in two parts to avoid unduly lengthy posts:

duduspace:

I do not agree that their hands are tied when it comes to EEA immigration

You are being quite obstuse with this view - even your much touted article says their hands are tied.

Secondly, the PM confirmed in his speech a couple of days ago that:

, and that with migration from the EU to worry about as well, we’re powerless to address half of the problem anyway.

Yet Dudu knows more than the PM to say their hands aren’t tied when it comes to Europe.

and yes they can leave the EU if it becomes economically expedient to do so, it is not in the best interests of the country to cut the number of skilled people immigrating into the country or bring policies that will discourage such people from coming if you still leave your country open to benefit migrants who are not contributing but getting benefits.

Access to the EU’s free market in goods and services is far more important than any immigration impacts on the UK. As for being ‘benefit migrants’ - the EU citizens moving to the UK are described thus:

A recent report (Dustmann, Frattini and Halls, 2009) shows that the A8 countries have made a positive contribution to the UK fiscal system, paying more in taxes than they receive in direct and indirect public transfers (such as benefits, NHS healthcare and education):

The highly skilled migrant/ Tier 1 program even by its very rules under the Labour govt disallowed resorting to public funds which are not contributory and yu wld never meet the requirements of residency if you resort to public funds whereas these EU migrants are not curtailed in resorting to public funds.

They are not curtailed, but according to the MAC report above, they are not abusing the system. I still see no reason to allow unfettered access simply because they can contribute. Some of the 'skilled' migrants we are talking about here are hairdressers - does the Uk still need to be importing hairdressers because they want to contribute?

Even if they don't have access to public funds, their dependants can access the NHS, can send their kids to taxpayer funded schools can they not?

Which is more benefitial to the UK economy? those who can contribute and not take out or those who can take out and can easily choose not to contribute yet still be taken care of?

Those whose countries offer both common market for UK goods as well as reciprocal immigration rights for UK citizens.

This is an intellectually lazy way of looking at the issue, taking the path of least resistance has never benefited any society from history and that is not what government is elected to do. There are more pressing dangers looming in the background above and beyond the influx of skilled immigration (which has actually been shown to benefit a society) and this government is not focussing on those in the name of pursuing a unified Europe. The whole Eurozone concept itself is currently on very shaky foundations and needs to be thoroughly reexamined.

So because Europe is shaky, keep allowing migrants to come in uncontrolled? Quite an intellectually hard working response.

Newsflash: the EU immigrants are also showing benefits to society.

The taxes being paid by these Working migrants whose numbers the proposals seeks to cut is also going towards bailout funds for the troubled countries in europe in case yu've forgotten.

Taxes are also paid by EU immigrants too - there is nothing special or distinctive about the taxes paid by non EEA immigrants, beyond what the rest of the UK population pays.

On second thoughts, I think three posts will be required to avoid undue lengthiness.

There is already a Needs analysis test for any application put forward for a work permit which must clearly show that those jobs cannot be done by a UK or EU national but if someone moves to a different country to fill a post, it sounds crazy to say he is only there for 5 years and cannot stay on after 5 years if he remains relevant and useful within that system, its akin to madness.

It is not madness at all - if the aim is to do a job and skill up a UK replacement (as is done with foreigners sent to other countries around the world), then 5 years is sufficient to transfer the necessary skills. It is not unreasonable to expect the UK to plan to address systemic skills shortages instead of perpetual reliance on immigration.

In any case, those skills deemed essential will have the right to settle - there is no automatic 5 year limit on ALL skilled immigrants. Somehow you are blissfully ignorant of this oft repeated fact.

I have said and continue to repeat that I agree that there is a problem with immigration in the UK, if you however read that article well, it clearly points out that the problematic types are not Higly skilled, worker immigration or even student immigration, rather its

1. Low skilled worker migration from the less affluent and economically troubled countries of europe
2. Those who exploit the assylum system.
3. Illegal immigration which is actually the main problem.

Again you show your abject ignorance of the issues being discussed. The largest contributor to settlement in the UK is work based settlement. Illegal immigration and asylum abuses are the SMALLEST contributors in terms of numbers.

Furthermore, the public opinion that your article trumpets is focused on reducing permanent migration. If the largest group engaging in permanent migration are skilled workers, it is simple logic that this number has to be better controlled.

The difference between permanent and temporary immigration has grown in policy relevance in 2011, as the coalition government seeks ways to “break the link” between shorter-term migration and permanent UK residence in order increase out-flows and thus reduce net-migration. We find that more people prefer to reduce permanent immigration than temporary immigration. As Figure 7 shows, 57% support reductions to permanent immigration[b] (38% ‘reduced a lot’), while 47% support reducing temporary immigration (10% ‘a lot’).

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern

Let the government proffer solutions to these ones first of all.

The solutions are being worked simultaneously - folk like you ignore anything being done in other areas and focus only on highly skilled immigration, believing there is some form of witch hunt going on.

There are four areas to focus on if we are really going to start controlling how many people come here and who they are.
Work visas, students, family migrants and [b]illegal immigrants.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/10/10/david-cameron-immigration-speech-in-full

There are principles at play here which in your flimsy appraisal of the proposals you continue to overlook. This is not about reciprocity of rights by countries.

That is exactly what it is about - the UK has agreed to allow free flow of people to and from the UK from the EU, knowing the overall economic benefits of a free market in goods and people offer a net gain to the UK’s economy.

The rules do not prevent people from contributing to society but it DISCOURAGES THE TYPE OF HIGHLY SKILLED MIGRATION THE SOCIETY NEEDS.

Yet again more ridiculous scaremongering. Let’s listen to those that should know the type of highly skilled migration the society needs:

President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse said:
'The UK is a global leader in science because we can attract the best minds  from around the world to work with our own home grown talent. 
'The government has listened to the science community’s concerns  about  jeopardising our international leadership by restricting the  immigration of scientists and the Royal Society will play its part in  ensuring that the very best international talent can continue to  come to the UK to work.'

President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Sir John Parker (Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering) said;
'In order to safeguard the UK's future competitiveness, we must ensure that it remains an attractive destination for world class engineers.
'I am confident that this new visa route will help to encourage global  excellence to come to the UK.'

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/press-releases/exceptional-talent?releases/exceptional-talent?

In summary they believe the government is taking steps to maintain the attractiveness for the skilled immigration the country needs.
Yet we should take Dudu’s word, not those of the experts charged with maintaining the pool of highly skilled people in the UK.

Would you personally consider migration to the UK under these proposed rules?

I would consider all my options and decide accordingly. If I decided to go to the UK, I would ensure my skills were exceptional or in demand such that I would be permitted to settle.

I asked you the question if you consider it fair to have someone relocate from his own country to the UK with his family and work within that system for 5 years, contribute his taxes and remain a model citizen and then be told Sayonara after 5 years?

It is perfectly fair if the terms and conditions are set out prior to travel. It is not compulsory to relocate to the UK or anywhere else. Besides, if the individual has the requisite skills, the person and his family will be allowed to settle.

If a cleaner pays taxes and is a ‘model’ citizen, is that sufficient reason to let them into the UK to live permanently? The issue is not taxes and being model citizens in the least.

Would you come to the UK under such a rule? I personally wouldn't go to a society that doesn't give a hoot about my own future but only seeks to use me for its own benefits

Information shows that even people without the right to settle permanently (inter company transfer for example) are still flocking to the UK in droves. It shows clear evidence that people will still come to work, even if they cannot settle.

Besides, this is not about ‘not giving a hoot’ - even if you are in the UK for a year or two, you benefit from education, the NHS and other social services like Police, libraries etc, regardless of your immigration status.

This is not a personal issue - if you won’t go, then that’s your prerogative. People will make decisions on what suits them best - the evidence shows that immigrants continue to come even when the right to settle is removed.

and if such able people are being discouraged from coming when any riff raff from a EU country can walk in and begin collecting benefits almost immediately, how can you say that is beneficial to the UK in the long term?

The EU immigrants make a net positive contribution to the UK economy. The fact that a few of them take benefits does not discount that net positive contribution. This net positive contribution is beneficial to the UK in the long term.