The costs of racism to this country are massive. Vast amounts are lost to our economy because we are outside Schengen and insist on a long and deliberately insulting visa process, something which puts many tourists, especially the newly rich Chinese, off Britain altogether. Billions are lost because we choose to make like as difficult as possible for those who want to pay to study here, while even more is lost because we refuse to accept people with the skills and dynamism we so desperately need. There are many more ways – delays in travel, for example and trade losses.

We need to find some way to make racists pay for what they cost us all.

1.
Racism? Where is colour mentioned in the OP?

You no doubt have proof of your claims of ‘billions lost’ and so on.

This is very Lee Jasper ish.

Hmm

Is the UK really so desperately short of journos and charity workers that it needs to import Americans?

n 2009, the most recent year for which there is comprehensive collated data, non-EU overseas students paid gbp2.2bn in tuition fees and spent another gbp3.0bn on living expenses (not counting money they earned from part-time work in the UK, so even if you believe the lump-of-labour fallacy, then all this cash is straight-up injected into the economy).

So (even if you ignore the follow-on benefits of skilled workers staying on in the UK and improving the net level of skill in the workforce), then the scope for rules that massively discourage foreigners from studying in the UK to cost the UK economy billions is obviously high. A 20% decline in admissions would cost a billion quid straight up, in exchange for absolutely no benefit to anyone.

Well, except for people who are distressed by the sight of a foreigner. But they’re not racist, oh no.

It’s not just the “brightest and best” as Chris@1 suggests. Our visa requirements and non-participation in Schengen do have an impact on tourism. How many billions are we losing because of this absurd island mentality? A better balance needs to be found.

The government is caught between its supporters – who could not care less if a migrant is “bright” or “the best” – and its donors in business, who want to be able to draw on an international pool of workers (for both reasons of talent and cost).

At any one time they have to be fobbing off one group, the other group, or both.

6: indeed. It’s a good example of how, when people claim that big business owns government policy (either current or previous), they’re not correct. If it did, then the last decade of migration panic, absurd restrictions on students and skilled workers, rules preventing Chinese millionaires from coming as tourists and preventing foreign BA passengers from even changing planes in London, would not have happened.

Well well well!

So anyone who shows any concern about immigration is racist eh? What a fucking surprise.

I’m all in favour of immigration me, every time I see some poor bastard from a shit-hole like Iran who happens to be gay I want them let in. Every time I hear of some poor bugger from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nigeria who never had a chance, I want them let in. As for other EU citizens, well we’re all Europeans now aren’t we?

Let’s face facts though. The UK is pretty damned small, yet IT’S POPULATION IS LARGER THAN THAT OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADA COMBINED. Bearing this fact in mind, there have to be some limits. Now me, being the sort of bloke I am would prefer to limit immigration for well off (well they were able to afford the tuition fees and living costs while studying here weren’t they?) middle class Americans than for some poor sod – especially if that poor sod happens to be a woman – from Somalia who may well have the aptitude, but lacks the opportunity in their own country, so excuse me if my heart doesn’t bleeding.

No, this strikes me as being yet another case of the international solidarity of the middle classes once again trying to ensure that they get all the sweeties while everyone else can fuck off.

And I haven’t even started to write about the high level of unemployed UK graduates yet…

I lived with two highly skilled graduates from America and Japan who wanted to stay in Britain after their degrees but found it impossible because of visa regulations.

Why do the “worst and dullest” seem to have less difficulty?

The UK is pretty damned small, yet IT’S POPULATION IS LARGER THAN THAT OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADA COMBINED.

It’s larger than the population of two of the world’s least densely populated countries, because the vast majority of the surface area of both consists of uninhabitable wasteland? Well fuck me with a spoon. Meanwhile, it’s #53 on the list of “most densely populated countries”. Anyone claiming ‘fuck off we’re full’ is an ignorant liar.

Good work on the completely-batshit-insane but at least novel inverse racism narrative to justify the fact that you want to keep the furriners out, though. 10/10, gold star.

@7 – I’ve always thought that when the government pushes through a policy it needs to think of the reaction of 3 groups. (1). Big business, (2). the tabloids, and (3). Grass roots supporters.

f two of these groups object, the policy won’t go ahead. If one objects, then it needs one of the other groups to support it, and the third to be at least indifferent.

“No, this strikes me as being yet another case of the international solidarity of the middle classes once again trying to ensure that they get all the sweeties while everyone else can fuck off.”

It strikes me as trying to ensure we don’t lose a lucrative export market of international students – one that is also crucial to the economy as many of the students subsequently start businesses – often high value businesses such as the tech companies in Cambridge. Not only that but if you removed all the foriegn born academics currently teaching brits, you would seriously harm the education system here.

I suspect the ironically-named ‘Think’ is one of those chaps who’s so far to the revolutionary left that he doesn’t *care* if a policy shafts absolutely everyone while making nobody better off, as long as it sticks it to the man. Yeah!

Shep: I don’t think we do, really. Everyone from everywhere, with the exception of (the very small number of) refugees faces the same rules. I guess it’s plausible that the poorer someone’s home country and the lower their skill-base, the more likely they are to be willing to risk living and working illegally in the UK. On the other hand, the people who have the greatest ability to actually arrive and work illegally are white English speakers from wealthy countries…

@9: Why do the “worst and dullest” seem to have less difficulty?

Because the laws and practices in Europe are built to protect the weak and vulnerable, who are often the same people as the worst and dullest (not that all weak and vulberable are bad and dull, but the bad and dull have an incentive to pose as weak and vulnerable, and many have an incentive to support them here).

And the well-to-do should just shove off (to America, etc).

Criminals are sometimes very difficult to deport. Nobody even wants them. Nice, hardworking people will leave when you tell them to. They have options, particularly after some track record (like a university degree).

@12: Everyone from everywhere, with the exception of (the very small number of) refugees faces the same rules.

In principle yes, but when someone breaks the rules, quite different practices may step in. You can hear of many a drug dealer and rapist who is in Europe illegally but has right to family life so cannot be deported.

You should note, however, that Britain is among the receivers of the best and brightest, compared to the northern welfare states in EU, as well as the south of EU that receives most migrants.

In the north, immigration through asylum mechanism => tax-paid education for those who care to have it => those who want to work and can earn well (“middle class”) move to UK (in 5-10 years, after getting citizenship of a EU country, then no need for a visa and work permit in UK is automatic), and those who live off welfare, stay where they are most comfortable (Sweden, for instance). (The second generation in Britain may then be something different. As it may be in, say, Sweden.)

In the south, everyone knows that in Britain you could get to do some work, the problem is just that you need to get across the Channel and passport controls.

I think that over the centuries this country has been enriched by immigration but I think that our housing stock, schools, health system and water/sewerage systems are struggling to cope, so I think it makes sense to be picky who we let in.

It seems to me that the main proposition here is that immigrants from America are educated and valuable to us, but other immigrants, for example refugees and dependent relatives are not. Come and live where I do and you will see very highly educated immigrants from war-torn countries doing any job they can get, however menial, and not being hired by companies that could take advantage of what they have to offer. If nothing else, it can take a lot of intelligence and initiative to escape from some countries and to get asylum in the uk or to get clearance to join a partner here.

@ 8Let’s face facts though. The UK is pretty damned small, yet IT’S POPULATION IS LARGER THAN THAT OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADA COMBINED

Aus and C are probably underpopulated in terms of space. However both use far more than their fair share of the world’s resources.

England had 3 million just before the Black Death and it was overpopulated

Africa has 800 million and it is probably overpopulated despite being over a fifth of the world’s surface.

Most Biologists and Demographers would argue that overpop is more about resources than space. Human pop carrying capacity is clearly related to technological development and as such few would argue that the UK is overpopulated

How terrible. It’s well known that without a constant stream of best and brightest young migrants to do science journalism, a country will collapse into chaos.

Notice how the first 20 entries on the list of countries ordered by population density are city states like Monaco or Singapore or tiny Islands like Jersey or the Maldives. If you ignore them that puts the UK in the top quintile.

That’s the UK, though. But most immigrants are going to settle in England. According to a quick Google, the population density of England is over 1000 people per square mile, perhaps even higher than the Netherlands.

That puts us right up near the top of the list. Top ten if you ignore the really tiny states we’re probably in the top ten. So when does it become okay to take this into account? Oh yeah, that’s right. It will never become okay to take this into account, and anyone who tries to do so is a Hitler-worshipping racist who reads the Daily Mail.