The press eggs on crack-down on student visas


10:36 am - September 1st 2012

by Tim Fenton    


      Share on Tumblr

Much has been made of the decision by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to strip London Metropolitan University of the right to sponsor students from outside the EU.

The UKBA says that students are not having their attendance monitored, that many of them have not demonstrated their competence in the English language, and that many did not have valid visas to be in the UK.

The University, not surprisingly, disputes the conclusions, but if students cannot find alternative sponsors within 60 days then they face deportation, which is not going to help their studies.

Added to the dispute are the usual suspects in the Fourth Estate who have immediately concluded that this is a long overdue crackdown on illegal immigration and that the University has been condoning this.

What jars about this whole affair is that overseas students are a lucrative source of additional income for Universities, and moreover a generator of billions of pounds of business every year for the wider economy – even the scaremongering folks at Migration Watch admit that much.

So to take this action in what appears to be such a unilateral fashion seems strange.

The impression is given that the Government, in the person of Immigration Minister Damian Green, has been listening rather too much not only to groups like Migration Watch and worrying about losing support to UKIP, but also has been swayed by parts of the Fourth Estate, where migration scares are de rigueur, especially at slow news times – like just after a Bank Holiday weekend.

So it should surprise nobody to see the Express splashing “1,300 Migrants A Day Pour In” (they don’t merely arrive when the intention is to frighten the readers, they have to flood, swamp or pour).

And the Mail talks of “Visas, sham courses and bogus students”, going on to tell readers of “bogus or unscrupulous colleges … decade of Labour complacency”.

Isn’t it great that, 44 years after Enoch Powell self destructed his political career on the altar or cheap racist populism, some editors and hacks still resort to frighteners like these?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Tim is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He blogs more frequently at Zelo Street
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Immigration ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Plus, Labour changed the regs and rules about this clamping down more and more multiple times in offce, makign it harder and harder for overseas students to get into the country.

I can remember several competitors going out of business as a result of one change back when I was working in language travel, and that was 2006.

There’s a problem, not a single Govt has ever really grapsed the actual problem nor tried to actualyl solve it.

The problem isn’t too many people coming into the country as students, it’s that no one ever checks to make sure they leave afterwards. And if they’re only on a time limited visa, someone should be.

The press eggs on any crack down aimed at potential foreigners. I recall from long before Labour got voted in back in 97 there were still articles about too many foreigns getting in the country. If it wasn’t asylum seekers it’s eastern European criminal gangs, Polish tradesmen, or Roma gypsies making their babies cry for coins on the London Underground, or fake colleges letting Africans in, or Islamic invaders marching over with the express purpose of out breeding everyone. Apparently the White cliffs of Dover have a special place in every Englishman’s heart, presumably it’s because they can be used as massive white board for writing “fuck off we’re full” on em.
Still Sells newspapers though, which is the main thing.

(As an aside, getting hold of a copy of Richard Littlejohn’s book “to hell in a handcart” is a rather illuminating look into the concerns of the past – number of fucks the right gave about Muslims in pre 9/11 times? Zero. But concerns about Latvians? Fooking loads mate)

This is an interesting situation, and I’m not sure the ghouls at the Mail and Migration Watch can entirely be blamed for the difficulties here. Though doubtless they’ll be rubbing their hands with glee.

I’ve come across foreign workers many times in the past who’ve been on student visas – allowed to work 20 hours per week during course time, and more during the holidays. Generally employed via agencies, I’ve sometimes been surprised to get the same worker offered to me by two or more agencies (each not being able to supply them for more than 20 hours per week). I’ve also been surprised at the length of the holidays and the course which seem to let them carry on for many years. It seemed pretty obvious that some of them were using the student visa merely as a means of living and working in the UK.

I’m pretty sure that there’s been fairly widespread exploitation of the student visa policy – but are the universities party to this ? In one sense it could be argued convincingly that it’s not really any of the univeristy’s business to check up on what its students are doing. If they get their fees, then surely it’s someone elses problem., They are though responsible for them getting the visas in the first place – and I don’t think it’s asking too much for them to monitor that their students are fulfilling the requirements. – Through for instance such obvious measures as attendance registers, and checking qulaifications and standards of entry, It seems London Met have been very lax on this.

Don’t forget either that London Met, has had serious problems in the past regarding non-reporting of droputs from courses, and faced a major financial crisis due to demands for repayment of funding due to this. It’s a university that ranks poorly in just about every comparison table. This latest problem will do it’s already tarnished reputation serious damage – perhaps irrepairable. Would you be putting this university on your UCAS form ? The university itself may ultimately be the biggest long term casualty of this latest “crackdown”

The more worryong thing on an individual lever though is that students who have come to London Met in good faith, and are studyong within the law for their degrees may suddenly find themselves potentially without a university to finish their course, and without a country to live in while they do it. The university’s inadequacies are not their fault, and I hope (but don’t particularly expect) that they’ll be given every assistance in finding ways of continuing their studies.

Let’s not get too worked up though about the other people – hoepfully a minority – of students abusing their visas – this makes them I guess “illegal immigrants” . Remember that some things are illegal because they are wrong, whilst other things are wrong only because they are illegal. The great moral wrong that students who abuse their student visas are committing, is using their wits to try and make their way in life. I don’t really see the evil in that.

Anyone who wants to come here to work, study or whatever should be free to do so without the fear of harassment or deportation by the UK Borders agency. We should have completely open borders.

Immigrants should, of course, come here with the full understanding that the UK state will not feed them, clothe them or house them and that, if they become ill, they will have to pay for the cost of their treatment.

Much the same bargain as I would get should I wish to migrate to many other countries.

Pagar:

Will you be practicing this in your own home too? A completely open house?

What those racist bigots seem to deliberately forget, is this country has allways been a centre for immigration. Sometimes violent immigration with ethnic cleansing in the case of Saxons in particular.

Do they seriously think people coming here to study or work is a problem? It is a compliment to this country that it can still attract people from all over the world.

One other thing to consider is that British people are just as mobile, we choose to be immigrants in other countries to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million per year. The motivation in both cases? make a better life for yourself. Why is that wrong?

There is also the problem of birth rate to consider, it has dropped to 1.7 children per household, without immigration the population of this country will drop, and that is worse than the current recession for the economy.

“What those racist bigots …”

The London Metropolitan University has failed in its contractual obligations and has had its franchise revoked. Simple as that.

Meaning that you are clearly very prejudicial and a bigot yourself as it clearly comes easily to you to label and stereotype.

“ … is this country has allways been a centre for immigration. Sometimes violent immigration with ethnic cleansing in the case of Saxons in particular …”

Typical extremist nonsense. For a start, that would be called invasion, not immigration.

But the simple fact of the matter is that all of these past ‘immigrations’ were by virtually the all same genetic group (R1b / R1a) negating any waffle about ‘ethnic cleansing’ or the more offensive ‘nation of mongrels.’

The simple truth is that even these successive waves had very little impact upon the British people, and that they have remained overwhelmingly homogenous (around 80%) since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line.

A far greater claim to the land and to indigenous status then most other groups, such as the M?ori

“Do they seriously think people coming here to study or work is a problem?”

More ignorant hyperbole when the obvious answer is clearly not.

The issue is clearly when they are adhering to the terms of their visa.

“we choose to be immigrants in other countries to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million per year … The motivation in both cases? make a better life for yourself”

Care to substantiate that figure as claimed? That is by demographic, immigration status and motivation?

“without immigration the population of this country will drop”

This tiny island you mean?

Great.

Less competition for existing resources such as: Jobs, energy, housing, infrastructure and services.

@ 5 Jeff

Will you be practicing this in your own home too? A completely open house?

My house is my personal property and I have the right to invite whoever I wish to visit or share it.

The country inhabited by UK citizens is not the property of the UK state or its government. It therefore has no right to prohibit anyone from coming (or leaving) here if they wish to.

9. Chaise Guevara

@ PAt

“Less competition for existing resources such as: Jobs, energy, housing, infrastructure and services.”

That’s not how it works. The UK doesn’t come with a predefined number of job, power stations, houses, bus routes etc.

As the population rises or falls, those things you listed above move with it. The only place where you might see a notable short-term reduction in competition is housing. An exodus of immigrants could well see you lose your job, because your company’s customer base included immigrants and, with fewer consumers, they don’t need as many employees.

Pagar:

“The country inhabited by UK citizens is not the property of the UK state or its government”

Actually it is, old chap. That is rather the point of countries.

Your passport remains their property too.

“It therefore has no right to prohibit anyone from coming (or leaving) here if they wish to.”

Actually it does, old chap. As you will find out anytime you try to leave or return to any UK port.

Or in fact any other countries ports.

You are very deluded. Not even the communists practice open borders. In fact, especially not the communists.

“My house is my personal property and I have the right to invite whoever I wish to visit or share it”

So do the British people in their home, old chap. And poll after poll suggests the majority want immigration controls.

And of course this reflected each election when the parties vie and lie about who will implement the toughest controls in order to get more votes.

There is nothing to suggest that any sizable number of British people want your rather bizarre demand.

11. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 Jeff

Not saying I agree with Pagar, but you’ve repeatedly interpreted his claims as statements of facts when they were clearly written as moral opinions. So when he says “the state has no right”, he doesn’t mean it has no right as formalised in law, he means that it has no moral right from his POV.

Also, argumentum ad populum.

“you’ve repeatedly interpreted his claims as statements of facts when they were clearly written as moral opinions”

Opinions that he would like to have turned into fact, on the basis that he is infallible.

Even though virtually alone with it.

You call it ‘argumentum ad populum’ but most people understand the will of the majority as being the cornerstone of democracy.

Chaise Guevara:

“you’ve repeatedly interpreted his claims as statements of facts when they were clearly written as moral opinions”

Opinions that he would like to have turned into fact, on the basis that he is infallible.

Even though virtually alone with it.

You call it ‘argumentum ad populum’ but most people understand the will of the majority as being the cornerstone of democracy.

Democracy and liberty don’t always get on. A quick google of proposition 8 should tell you why.

@ 9

“That’s not how it works”

2.65m unemployed and 463,000 jobs on offer.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the problem is.

“The UK doesn’t come with a predefined number of job, power stations, houses, bus routes etc”

That’s right to a degree. It comes with the amount appropriate to size it as it always has without immigration.

But there are so many houses that can be built on a small island and services that can be supplied, infrastructure, welfare etc.

“As the population rises or falls, those things you listed above move with it”

So there is no need for immigration and never has been.

“The only place where you might see a notable short-term reduction in competition is housing”

Nope. Transport for one. Services too and many jobs in addition.

“An exodus of immigrants could well see you lose your job”

Really? What happened to your early statement:

“As the population rises or falls, those things you listed above move with it”?

The simple fact is that mass immigration has simply lowered wages for the working class as well providing entirely unnecessary competition; additionally there is now enormous burden on social welfare, services, infrastructure and housing and crime rates.

Many immigrant and immigrant descended groups have far higher levels of unemployment then the indigenous populace with one group showing over half of its 16-24 year old unemployed.

Cylux:

Democracy is the best chance at liberty.

What is your alternative?

@16 A benevolent AI tyrant. Just waiting on the boffins for it.

13

The will of the majority is not the cornerstone of democracy, at least, not in the UK. J. S MIll referred to your proposition of democracy as being ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

At present we have a representative democracy whereby voters entrust their elected representatives to act on behalf of, and in the best interests of all, this does not mean pandering to populist wishes.

@ Jeff

We need to get back to first principles here.

Your proposition is that the state is entitled to prevent people freely moving across its borders. You propose that it is entitled to do this even where there is no evidence or allegation that their movement presents any threat to the indigenous population. You are content that it is morally justifiable for the state to use violence to prevent such movement.

I would argue that any man is entitled to live on this planet wherever he wishes to do so, always providing that he does nothing to interfere adversely with the lives of others. I would also argue that any coercion used to stop him from living as he chooses, whether that coercion is conducted by individuals or by groups of individuals (however constructed and with whatever mandate) is morally indefensible.

Clearly, you disagree and would argue that the fig leaf of democracy is sufficient to trump individual freedom. As, for the moment at least, the state is the construct that has the monopoly of the means of violence, you win.

That doesn’t necessarily mean you are correct.

@ steveb

“At present we have a representative democracy”

And how do MP’s get elected? Is it by majority vote?

“whereby voters entrust their elected representatives to act on behalf of, and in the best interests of all”

Nope. Not even close.

They are elected largely on their parties manifesto and their individual position on local issues. Meaning that not ‘all’ will consider it be in their best interests.

“this does not mean pandering to populist wishes”

LOL. If you want to get elected it does. It means telling the voting majority want they want to hear, clearly!

And what you call ‘populist’ is the very basis of democracy: The will of the majority wins through election.

Jeff, it’s not a mandated democracy, MPS use their judgement, Mill’s Representative Government is good on the whys, as is Burke’s Address to the Electors of Bristol.

Steve’s 100% right about the way it’s supposed to work, we elect MPs for a variety of reasons but their job is to debate and vote as they see fit and justify that to the voters if they seek reelection.

Many will vote against the popular will becuase they know it’s the right thing to do-and that’s a bloody good thing in some cases.

MPs are Representatives, not Delegates, and that’s necessary for the decision making process, until we get the tech to make true demarchy possible, that’s the way it should be.

Pagar:

“Your proposition is that the state is entitled to prevent people freely moving across its borders.”

Actually it does and it is the pretty much the first duty of any government.

“You propose that it is entitled to do this even where there is no evidence or allegation that their movement presents any threat to the indigenous population”

If they are not stopped from freely moving across borders and checked out first, how on earth do you know if ‘is no evidence or allegation that their movement presents any threat to the indigenous population’?

“I would argue that any man is entitled to live on this planet wherever he wishes to do so”

And you would be in the tiniest minority of people who believe that; certainly according to many polls carried out in the UK, Europe, US, Australia, etc so why do you think your opinion should carry any weight with the majority?

“Clearly, you disagree and would argue that the fig leaf of democracy is sufficient to trump individual freedom”

I believe in democracy, yes. Not that it has too much an airing at present, as manifestos are not legally binding.

But that aside, you clearly are not a democrat, so what are you?

@ MatGB

“Steve’s 100% right about the way it’s supposed to work”

100% wrong actually.

Which part of the above is incorrect?

How do MP’s get elected? Is it by majority vote?

And how do people decide who to vote for? Is largely on their parties manifesto and their individual position on local issues. Meaning that not ‘all’ will consider an MP and their stance to be in their best interests? Otherwise we wouldn’t need elections?

“Many will vote against the popular will becuase they know it’s the right thing to do-and that’s a bloody good thing in some cases”

Really? It is a good thing that MP’s may lie about their beliefs and manifesto promises in order to get elected by a popular vote, only then to go on to override the wishes of that popular vote because one person knows better then the majority who elected them?

20

I don’t think anyone would argue that voters are told what they want to hear but many voters believe that when they vote, they are voting for a party or its’ manifesto, however, they are not, they are voting for a representative. And this representative can change his/her party at any stage and still be entitled to serve the constituency which they have been elected. And neither is failing to carry-out any part of the manifesto a reason to be disbarred.

I have little doubt that you believe what you have written but you are wrong, for example,the majority of people would like to see hanging re-introduced, and have done so for many years, as you are aware, this has not happened. Similarly, no-one voted for the Iraq war.

As I have already stated, our democracy is not a tyranny of the majority.

Jeff, huge amounts of people have written huge amounts of work on this over the last few centuries, I’ve referenced two of them and use some very precise terms, as has Steve.

Educate yourself as to the meaning of a liberal, representative democracy. Hell, knock on some doors, large numbers of voters choose candidates based on their presumed judgement and character.

Steve’s right, you may not like the way the system works and is designed to work, but his description of what happens is 100% right. Feel free to argue it should be otherwise, but trying to pretend that it works differently to how it does when several of us really do know our stuff on this is only going to frustrate you.

Representative Democracy. Or, as the Americans put it, “A Republic”.

MPs are not mandated delegates, if you don’t know what that crucial bit of terminology means, look it up or ask, but don’t repeatedly try to tell us the sky is pink, it ain’t.

If oyu think it should be, fine, knock yourself out, but it’s not.

@ steveb

“I don’t think anyone would argue that voters are told what they want to hear”

Lying to the voting majority because of a need for the populist vote is a subversion of democracy.

“And neither is failing to carry-out any part of the manifesto a reason to be disbarred”

And so is that, considering it is on that basis that they receive a popular mandate.

“the majority of people would like to see hanging re-introduced …no-one voted for the Iraq war”

And neither were / are in any mainstream manifesto to be voted on either so it your analogy has no real value.

@ MatGB

“huge amounts of people have written huge amounts of work on this”

Meaning what, exactly?

Huge amounts of people have written huge amounts of works on everything from the Flat Earth theory to the Moon as a spaceship to the existence of God.

What is your point?

“Educate yourself as to the meaning of a liberal, representative democracy”

Educate yourself to the fact that the UK is a democracy, not a “a liberal democracy” and that the majority of people do not vote liberal.

“Steve’s right, you may not like the way the system works”

Steve is wrong and you clearly do not understand how the system works.

But Steve has hit the nail on the head in his last comment:

Politicians tell people what they want to hear because they need the popular vote. Populism is all important to democracy. It is only when popularly elected that some Politicians decide they are now actually above such populism and will not represent the majority who voted for them after all.

That is a subversion of democracy; nothing to be celebrated.

Educate yourself a little on what democracy means and how and why people are elected.

steveb:-

“I don’t think anyone would argue that voters are told what they want to hear”

Lying to the voting majority because of a need for the populist vote in order to win elections is a subversion of democracy.

“And neither is failing to carry-out any part of the manifesto a reason to be disbarred”

And so is that, considering it is on that basis that they receive a popular mandate.

“the majority of people would like to see hanging re-introduced …no-one voted for the Iraq war”

And neither were / are in any mainstream manifesto to be voted on either so it your analogy has no real value.

steveb

“I don’t think anyone would argue that voters are told what they want to hear”

Lying to the voting majority because of a need for the populist vote is a subversion of democracy.

“And neither is failing to carry-out any part of the manifesto a reason to be disbarred”

And so is that, considering it is on that basis that they receive a popular mandate.

“the majority of people would like to see hanging re-introduced …no-one voted for the Iraq war”

And neither were / are in any mainstream manifesto to be voted on either so it your analogy has no real value.

We have Jeff. Why don’t you.

If you don’t know that hte word liberal has a broad meaning as well as a narrow partisan one, then you’re not going to understand most of the points being made.

The constitution of this country is fairly well understood by those that have studied it, written about it, explained it. Hell, I’ve written articles for this site expalining bits of it.

that you don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you understand the meaning of the words you and we are using means further conversation is pointless. I’ve given you references, names, terminology. Look them up, learn what they mean.

Then, as I’ve said, come back if you wish and say what you don’t like about the way things actually work. Don’t delude yourself with this fantasy about what “a democracy” actually is, or dismiss what a Representative Democrary (do, please, note the capitals) is simply because you haven’t bothered to try to understand it.

23

The majority vote is a rather loose term, indeed our first past the post system has delivered governments who did not receive the majority of votes, for example, in 1951 Labour attracted most votes but the tories formed the government. Conversly in the first general election of 1974, the tories received most votes but Labour formed the government. We now have a coalition in which the deputy prime-minister belongs to a party who received less votes than the opposition.

As MatGB suggests, you appear to be asserting what you would like to happen within a democracy, not what is.

http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html
Always a good one to add to a discussion regarding the methods and results of democracy. Even if it is tongue in cheek.

@ Pagar:

“The country inhabited by UK citizens is not the property of the UK state or its government.”

Whose property is it, then?

“I would argue that any man is entitled to live on this planet wherever he wishes to do so, always providing that he does nothing to interfere adversely with the lives of others. I would also argue that any coercion used to stop him from living as he chooses, whether that coercion is conducted by individuals or by groups of individuals (however constructed and with whatever mandate) is morally indefensible.”

And on what grounds would you argue this?

MatGB:

This country doesn’t have ‘a constitution’ nor does it have a ‘liberal democracy.’

Far from your aim of patronising someone you disagree with, each comment you post makes you appear more ignorant and even more absurd.

Another top tip: If you are attempting the talking down method, at least make sure you are able to spell simple words when ‘expalining’ your contentions.

Steveb:

“The majority vote is a rather loose term”

How are MP’s elected?

“Indeed our first past the post system has delivered governments who did not receive the majority of votes”

What is the basic requirement after an election that enables a party to form a government?

“As MatGB suggests, you appear to be asserting what you would like to happen within a democracy, not what is”

Actually, that is what you are both doing.

Mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid the fact that in a democracy, the majority, that is the popular vote, is what wins and in order to win that poplar vote, politicians must cultivate populism.

Of course the country has a constitution Jeff, there are entire course taught on constitutional law, and there have been many Acts passed, even recently, that changed the constitution.

And if your evidence for me being wrong is a simple typo, you’ve lost.

Now, note, I didn’t start by talking down to you, I did after you became increasingly absurd and refused to even acknowledge the meanings of the words being used.

As the great man once said “you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.

So yes, if someone’s being an ignorant arse, and, crucially, doesn’t want to even do basic research when they’re up against someone who actually uses terms and insists on their correct meanings, I’ll talk down to them.

Educate yourself, you’re clearly out of your depth here.

Jeff,

“Many will vote against the popular will becuase they know it’s the right thing to do-and that’s a bloody good thing in some cases”

Really? It is a good thing that MP’s may lie about their beliefs and manifesto promises in order to get elected by a popular vote, only then to go on to override the wishes of that popular vote because one person knows better then the majority who elected them?

Is that really what you inferred from the sentence you quoted?

Unfortunately, my experience suggests that there are quite a lot of people who believe that democracy works just as Jeff suggests, although most will tend to listen when certain misconceptions are explained. And the idea that the UK has no written constitution seems to have become an urban myth.

Imo, more politics should be taught in secondary schools, particularly about how our democracy works and about our own constitution. Maybe the reason why people become disinterested or disillusioned by the political process is because of their unmet expectations fostered by ignorance.

Jeff,

Are you so dumb you actually think the whole of the uK is ‘your house’?

What a silly straw man that is – sure, if my house had all the space that the UK has – then sure, it would be open house.

Sadly most houses are not of such a size to offer an open house.

I would also point out (to the straw man) that I would HAVE to have an open house – if I had previously gone round to my neighbours in the past and burgled them against their will (as colonialisation was) – anything less would be morally reprehensible.

…or did you forget that?

@jeff

“Your proposition is that the state is entitled to prevent people freely moving across its borders.”

Actually it does and it is the pretty much the first duty of any government.

Your arguments are silly – who ‘made’ the borders to which you feel we should all adhere to?

Did God make them? – or man?

What a shame you think that man is God – you will pay the penalty for being so foolish and arrogant.

Whilst you’re debating the movement of people – why is it you wish labour to be restricted by national borders – but it is acceptable for capital to be carried across them freely?

Don’t you even understand the basics of borders in the last 20 centuries?

What a fool.

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 12 Jeff

“Opinions that he would like to have turned into fact, on the basis that he is infallible. ”

Person Agrees With His Own Opinions Shocker!

“Even though virtually alone with it.

You call it ‘argumentum ad populum’ but most people understand the will of the majority as being the cornerstone of democracy.”

If we’re being patronising, most people understand the difference between democracy and morality. Or have you never taken issue anything done by any democracy anywhere?

Oh, and I call it argumentum ad populum because that’s what it is, and it remains a logical fallacy whether you like it or not.

41. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 Pat

“2.65m unemployed and 463,000 jobs on offer.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the problem is. ”

Doesn’t take a genius to presume it’s all down to their pet peeve, either.

“That’s right to a degree. It comes with the amount appropriate to size it as it always has without immigration.

But there are so many houses that can be built on a small island and services that can be supplied, infrastructure, welfare etc. ”

There is a (soft) upper limit to the amount of house we can build on this *rather large* island, but seeining as we’re currently at a miniscule fraction of that it’s not really relevant, is it? Ditto infrastructure.

I don’t see why there’s a limit to services and welfare based on population. More people means more tax money for these things.

“So there is no need for immigration and never has been.”

What you’ve done here is dismiss one possible reason and pretended the others don’t exist. This is called “Avoiding your argument’s weak spots”. Lemme give you a few:

1) Bringing in skills that are in short supply at present.
2) Fillinguseful jobs natives don’t want.
3) Compensating for the ageing of the population.
4) Simply allowing people to live where they want, which we should do all else being equal.

“Nope. Transport for one. Services too and many jobs in addition. ”

No, that wouldn’t be notable (although I suppose we could argue about what that means). These would expand quickly – the jobs would come naturally, the services would be budgeted for, and it doesn’t take much to add a few extra buses to a route. The best part would be done within a year, say.

“[“An exodus of immigrants could well see you lose your job”

Really? What happened to your early statement:

“As the population rises or falls, those things you listed above move with it”?]”

It hasn’t changed. Pat =/= the general population. You could lose or get a job due to immigration or emigration without the overall jobs:population ration changing.

“The simple fact is that mass immigration has simply lowered wages for the working class as well providing entirely unnecessary competition; additionally there is now enormous burden on social welfare, services, infrastructure and housing and crime rates.”

Sources please. Particularly you need to show that immigrants do more harm than help, paying attention to thinks like later-generation immigrants.

“Many immigrant and immigrant descended groups have far higher levels of unemployment then the indigenous populace with one group showing over half of its 16-24 year old unemployed.”

This would be anecdotal even if you’d sourced it, which you haven’t.

I’ve yet to read much about the way so many students from ”third world” countries get to be able to pay the fees in the UK. They are either the children of the very wealthy (and connected) or there are all kinds of deals, borrowing, lending and dodgy agencies and packages being put together in places like Pakistan.

That a country like Pakistan is a hotbed of corruption and dodgy practice is surely something to be taken into consideration. Or do we just look the other way and be grateful for all the dosh? Like we are with the Russian billionaires and all the money that Middle East oil money brings in.
I’m in Vienna right now and the Gulf Arabs on holiday are a serious source of income for the local economy it would seem. For taxi drivers, and the tourist horse and carriage trips around the city centre. In the cafes and restutrants. So maybe one should not look a gift horse in the mouth, but I can’t help wondering what they ever did to be rich, like they seem to be.
The young men with not a care in the world as they are pampered from the day they are born in casual attire, even shorts – and their hijabed and niqabed ”womenfolk” …. who have foreign semi-slaves to do all the dirty work in their countries.

Like with taking money from the idle rich from the Gulf (and at home) I would question the morality of having so many foreign students coming to the UK when the average person in that country is living in poverty.

There’s obviously loads of scams and rackets going on.
Looking at all the poor young Indians handing out the free papers in central London, I had wondered how organised it all was.

Fees paid for UK university and visa, crap job …. and accomodation lined up with a slum landlord, and your family now owes me $35,000 – with interest.

If anyone knows of any reports into what actually happens, posting a link would be appreciated.

Damon, the average person in the average gulf state isn’t living in poverty. Most of the Govts there run very generous welfare schemes or similar, mostly to keep the populace happy.

Y’see, the thing is, they’re Gulf States. They have this black liquidy stuff that the rest of the world wants to buy.

44. Chaise Guevara

@ MatGB

“Y’see, the thing is, they’re Gulf States. They have this black liquidy stuff that the rest of the world wants to buy.”

Guinness, right?

Chaise, some of the rest of the world likes to buy that stuff, but if I want a dark beer, I’ll stick to a properly brewed Porter rather than some Irish knock off 😉

@40. Chaise Guevara: “There is a (soft) upper limit to the amount of house we can build on this *rather large* island, but seeining as we’re currently at a miniscule fraction of that it’s not really relevant, is it? Ditto infrastructure.”

You have to be careful about how hard you push that argument. Otherwise you end up with humanly insensitive shit like the English Olympic village:
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_201207.html

@40. Chaise Guevara — quoting Pat @15: “Many immigrant and immigrant descended groups have far higher levels of unemployment then the indigenous populace with one group showing over half of its 16-24 year old unemployed.”

Sadly, there may be truth in that statement, Chaise. Unemployment amongst Somali and Bangladeshi immigrants, first and second generation, is disturbing. The Wikipedia article on Bangladeshi immigration to to the UK cites government stats — dismal stats — on unemployment.

48. Chaise Guevara

@ Charlieman

“You have to be careful about how hard you push that argument. Otherwise you end up with humanly insensitive shit like the English Olympic village”

Dude, I hate eyesores as much as the next man. Seriously, I live in Manchester and have to ride past the university’s shitty “tin can” building twice a day. But pretty buildings vs housing for all? I’ll take the latter.

“Sadly, there may be truth in that statement, Chaise. Unemployment amongst Somali and Bangladeshi immigrants, first and second generation, is disturbing. The Wikipedia article on Bangladeshi immigration to to the UK cites government stats — dismal stats — on unemployment.”

Indeed. That’s why I used the word “anecdotal”. Although “selective evidence” might have been better. Pat wanted to bash immigrants in general, but his/her data was about “Many immigrant and immigrant descended groups”. In other words, selected outliers that supported Pat’s prior beliefs.

Group Hand-Picked For Having High Unemployment In Lack of Jobs Shocker!

MatGB, I wasn’t talking about rich students coming from the Gulf states,
They obviously have the money. Whether you’d want too many of them at your university is another thing. They come from rather despicable places and shouldn’t be given the red carpet treatment just because they can splash the cash.
Think about the other students who will have to spend years in their company.
The children of princes and despots. And the likes of Saif Gaddafi and his bodyguards etc. And all the offspring of the deeply corrup Chinese bureaucracy.

I was more wondering about the people from poor countries like Pakistan.
They are either from the rich corrupt feudal class or they are poorer people involved in some kinds of lending schemes. Where is the money coming from, and why? How is it being paid back? In a place like Pakistan it could even involve slavery or bonded labour. Or bride buying, or who knows what?
But overseas visas are a big business in south Asia. You can go to any country you want to if you can pay the fees. Student visas, tourist visas, joining family members, getting work visas …. even marrying a total stranger who has EU citizenship, is all possible.

It would be far easier to help them develop their own universities rather than the ridiculous scheme where people from the poorest countries are paying astronomical sums of money to get an education on the other side of the world.
Money they can’t really have unless they are from the corrupt elite, or getting involved in some exploitative loans setup.

It would be far easier to help them develop their own universities rather than the ridiculous scheme where people from the poorest countries are paying astronomical sums of money to get an education on the other side of the world.

In order to have a decent university system, you first need a large number of graduates and post grads able to set it up and run it. Many countries have universities founded by UK educated academics, and academia generally has a fairly international approach (I was taught by a Belizean born US citizen who’s father was Equadorian and whos emother was Canadian, her deputy was Canadian and my admissions tutor regularly taught in Estonian universities, another of my lecturers had to return to Greece to complete his national service half way through my degree).

A lot of those that come over from Pakistan and similar are indeed from wealthy families but, of course, not everyone that’s wealthy in any one country is by default corrupt, I had a large number of wealthy-but legit Russians once, they found it harder to get Entry Clearance as they weren’t as good at the bribary…

However, it doesn’t actually matter for the purposes of university clearance how someone is paying for the course or their time here, what matters is that they’re able to do the studies. The Entry Clearance Officer and similar have to make judgements as to whether an individual is someone that should be admitted to the country, but that’s a different question relating to individuals, and it would be horribly wrong to discriminate against an entire nation, especially one we’ve historically close links with, because an element within it is corrupt.

I can however assert with confidence that Pakistani born potential students are a lot less likely than students from many other nationalities to get student visas, and that’s been true for a lot longer than the most recent decade-your concerns are, basically, already taken into consideration within the visa granting system.

@ 4 Pagar

”Immigrants should, of course, come here with the full understanding that the UK state will not feed them, clothe them or house them and that, if they become ill, they will have to pay for the cost of their treatment. ”

Firstly many countries have recipricol health agreements with the UK so we do not have to pay – neither do they

Secondly most immigrants are young and use few NHS resources. The only exception being maternity- we can hardly have a law banning sex with immigrants though I wouldn’t put it past this lot.

Thirdly we can hardly leave people in the street to die if they get ill- that would be more expensive than treating them.

Fourth given the richer world rips of the poorer world to an astonishing degree I hardly think paying for immigrant health care is a big thing do you

Pat: “2.65m unemployed and 463,000 jobs on offer. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the problem is.”

Yeah, simple, innit.

But who are you removing when you remove immigrants? Workers, or customers who (by buying goods) create jobs?

Reality is, you’re removing both.

It’s probably not quite a zero sum game, but it’s not as simple as you make out (compounded by the issue that when you crack down on immigration you inevitably get collateral damage – cutting out genuine tourists, businesspeople and students, either by refusing them entry by accident or just by putting them off with too much bureaucracy).

Right wingers have this vision of all immigrants being Muslims living ten to a house in Bradford, or huge impoverished African families – but actually there are lots living in Kensington and Chelsea. Those wealthy parts of our cities aren’t far behind the poorer parts in terms of migration and foreign-born population.

The much bigger issue in terms of employment in my opinion is the race to the bottom on wages with China (and similar countries).

pagar:

I appreciate your utopian position that no government has the right to control the movement of people, and I know it’s one a lot of people share even if they don’t put it in such stark terms: but that’s not the world we live in.

The reality is that if you removed all border controls with Africa (especially if no-one else did) half the continent would attempt to enter the country straight away. On an individual level, that would be entirely logical and not something I’d hold against the immigrants personally – but it would be an unimaginable catastrophe for everyone here. The migrants would not find the opportunities they hoped for. Realistically, there would also be screaming mobs burning down their houses. I know most people blame immigrants for immigration (even as they condemn UK citizens for failing to “get on their bikes and look for work” in London). There is no use denying that.

There are massive global inequalities, due in no small part to the globalised capitalist ideology you love. Maximising profits means minimising wages; maximising profits means maximum returns for investors (overwhelmingly the already wealthy). The only reason we can get the level of profitability and growth we’ve had is because we have been able to avoid the social contradictions of having a dirt-cheap labour force (those which led to the creation of the Communist and Labour movements) by keeping the sweatshops and misery out of sight and out of mind in the developing world.

If the full social implications of that system were suddenly thrown in people’s faces, and third world poverty, child labour and sweatshop conditions were suddenly in people’s faces overnight, there would probably be a war.

Jeff is wrong too, of course (!) – if we’re talking about democracy as a principle in some abstract sense, I’m pretty sure I could get loads of votes for ending immigration controls from any place outside Europe and North America…


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Jason Brickley

    The press eggs on crack-down on student visas http://t.co/2h5EjfKu

  2. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – The press eggs on crack-down on student visas http://t.co/WzE8Xve9

  3. Katherine Smith

    Liberal Conspiracy – The press eggs on crack-down on student visas http://t.co/WzE8Xve9

  4. BevR

    The press eggs on crack-down on student visas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/D4Tb0Ohl via @libcon

  5. David Davies

    The press eggs on crack-down on student visas ~ http://t.co/txQoAeQf





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.